2006-12-08

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with all parties and if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
 That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, in relation to the motion regarding Senate amendments made to Bill C-2, an act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, the length of speeches be 10 minutes maximum and the speeches not subject to a question and comment period; and after no more than one speaker from each of the recognized parties have spoken, the motion be deemed concurred in on division. 

[Interjection]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
The Speaker: I have a slight concern. I believe that when I call for orders of the day, the request is going to be made that the motion for concurrence in the amendments to Bill C-2 be called for debate today.
That motion was put on notice last night. Our rules require 48 hours' notice of such a motion. The motion that has been moved and carried in the House dispensing with certain things in relation to the debate does not deal with the question of notice of the motion having been given.
Proper notice, in my view, has not been given and therefore we will need consent to call the motion now and then subject it to the rules of the debate that are included in this order.
Is that the intention of the House? 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
The Speaker:  Is it agreed that we dispense with the 48 hours' notice and call the motion now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
Federal Accountability ActHon. John Baird (President of the Treasury Board, CPC):  moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-2, An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability.
Mr. Speaker, we should all note that we are joined in the House today by the Parliamentarian of the Year, the member for  Wascana. Mr. Speaker, you can see the Christmas spirit is infecting all of us.
I am very pleased to rise today on the return of the federal accountability act to the House of Commons from the Senate.
Canadians told all of us during the last election that they wanted government to be cleaned up. I believe that the  Prime Minister has shown immense leadership and statesmanship in making this issue, integrity and ethics in government, his number one priority. Nine weeks after taking office, we tabled comprehensive legislation. Nine months later, I believe we are on the cusp of history.
I want to thank all members of the House for all of their work on the bill. Specifically, I want to thank the member for  Vancouver Quadra. While we have not always agreed, he has always been an honourable member and a fair member to work with, and I appreciate that.
I also want to single out the former Bloc Québécois member for Repentigny, Benoît Sauvageau, and other members of the Bloc, including the member for Rivière-du-Nord and the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. Benoît Sauvageau showed great leadership throughout the committee hearings in dealing with this bill.
The NDP member for  Winnipeg Centre has shown a great commitment to accountability. I think it is safe to say that we would not have gotten to this stage without his leadership, and I want to single that out.
I also want to thank the member for Nepean—Carleton, my parliamentary secretary, for all of his work, and indeed all members of the House and a few members of the Senate.
We are on the cusp of a historic piece of legislation that I strongly believe will change the culture of Ottawa from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability.
There are 13 themes in this bill: reforming financing of political parties; banning secret donations; strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner; toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act; ensuring truth in budgeting with a parliamentary budget office; making qualified government appointments; cleaning up procurement of government contracts; cleaning up government polling and advertising; providing real protection for whistleblowers within the public service, which is something that is very important to my constituents in Ottawa West—Nepean, as I know it is to the constituents of Kingston and the Islands; strengthening the access to information law; strengthening the power of the Auditor General; strengthening auditing and accountability within departments; and creating a director of public prosecutions. All of these will contribute to the building that culture of accountability.
The public's trust was egregiously violated in recent years and I do not agree with the amount of time the Senate took, but at the end of the day, it has passed this bill. We have worked cooperatively.
I want to single out the leadership of Senator Don Oliver, who chaired the Senate committee and a huge amount of effort went into that. I wish to acknowledge as well the member for Dufferin—Caledon in this House, but Senator Oliver has shown great leadership, and I have enjoyed getting to know and working with Senator Day as well. 
This bill is now ready for royal assent following this debate. Much work will lie ahead in the implementation of this bill. We will do our best to work hard and to expeditiously see some of these reforms brought in, in short order, and others just following that. We will work night and day to ensure that the implementation is done right and that we continue to build on the culture of accountability.
Today is not the end. Today is the beginning. We all must share in ensuring that accountability is in place and we must remain eternally vigilant. As parliamentarians, all members of the House, our number one job will be accountability and oversight, and we can never forget that.
I do also want to speak about the public service briefly. The Public Service of Canada rose to the challenge to assist us with this piece of legislation, almost to show the new government and the new  Prime Minister what they could do.
My deputy, Wayne Wouters, the secretary of the Treasury Board, worked very hard. He made one brilliant decision to put Susan Cartwright, one of our senior associate deputy ministers, in charge of this. Joe Wild, our legal counsel, worked night and day, as well as my own office, led by my chief of staff, Chris Froggatt, and my director of parliamentary affairs, Garry Keller. I want to thank the public service across the nine departments who worked very hard to get this done. Bruce Carson in the Prime Minister's Office was also a huge help.
I genuinely believe that Parliament will be able to look back at this piece of legislation and say that we did the right thing. All parties worked hard together as Canadians expect of us. Canadians should be very proud of that and of the accomplishment of the federal accountability act.
Hon. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of the Treasury Board for his hard work and all of those who have worked with him to bring this legislation to this point.
I just want to deal with a few issues. First, I want to add my congratulations and thanks and that of the official opposition to all of those people who worked so hard behind the lines to make this work and, of course, Susan Cartwright and Rob Walsh, the legislative parliamentary counsels, and Joe Wild from the Department of Justice, who were instrumental in dealing with this highly complex legislation.
I will not repeat but only agree with the hon. President of the Treasury Board with respect to the various members of Parliament, both in the other place as well as the House of Commons, who worked so hard in their respective committees to bring back to the respective Houses improved legislation after extensive consideration, analysis, the hearing of witnesses and the thoughtful creation of amendments.
I have always been a little nervous with the word “cusp”, and I am not sure what we are on the cusp of here, but I hope it does not mean that we are looking over from a high point into a dark and dangerous deep hole. However, I think we should all feel confident that this legislation is taking us forward and it is taking us forward from, not a dark time, although mistakes were clearly made and they concerned us that all of our accountability mechanisms would be tightened up, but a continuation of something that happened through previous Liberal governments over a 10 year period on issues such as political financing. 
The former Liberal government's Bill C-24,  which the House passed about three years ago, was probably the most dramatic change and constraint on political financing in any democratic country in the world and this accountability act takes it even further. I think that is to the credit of both sets of legislation.
The creation of an independent ethics commissioner by the former Liberal government was also another step on the way to greater accountability. Many people on this side of the House and all sides of the House worked hard to ensure that an independent office was created. Again, this legislation takes us a step further in improving, we hope, the effectiveness of that office.
Thirdly, I would just mention, very briefly, the Gomery inquiry itself, which was probably the most extensive inquiry into the workings of government, the nature of accountability and the nature of responsibility in responsible government in the modern history of Canada. The multiple volumes of that report will remain instructive to all members of the House and all subsequent governments as we go forward to increasingly improve this.
I will quote briefly from the first report of Justice Gomery. This is an important quote for all of us to remember and, more important, it speaks to all Canadians and for Canadians to understand. At the beginning of his first report, Mr. Gomery said that all Canadians must understand that the vast majority of public servants and politicians in Canada are honest, diligent in their work and effective, and emerge from this inquiry without blame.
It is immensely important for us to appreciate that while we vigorously identify and deal with that, through changes to mechanisms of government and accountability or to hold people directly to account and actually have people punished for severe wrongdoings, we remember that our democracy depends on the public's faith in the honest workings of our public service and our Parliament, which is an immensely important thing.
While we accept, if not the rhetoric, at least the direction in which this is further taking us, I think issues, such as calling this the strongest piece of anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history, may have gone over that cusp and transcends the reality. However, these are important problems on which we have all come together. I have been proud to work with members of all parties in the House and with members in the other place to see us come to this day.
I would like to say something about the other place. It has had dozens of days of hearings and has heard numerous expert witnesses on every aspect of this very complex legislation. The senators did their work diligently and thoroughly and have come forward with further amendments to those that were put forward in the House. There are dozens of substantive amendments, as well as some that are more technical, but they all make this a better bill. The amendments allow us, as the President of the Treasury Board said, to diligently and more effectively implement all aspects of this legislation. We owe a great deal of respect and gratitude to the members of the other place for their hard work in bringing this back to us.
As with any piece of legislation, especially one so vast and so complex as this, which affects so many other pieces of legislation, implementation is not always simple. It may be that in the course of implementing this legislation, either through the experience of implementation itself or the change of context of various aspects, we will need to amend this as we go along. 
While we in the official opposition did not receive support for all of the amendments we suggested, we do think there are vitally important aspects of the legislation that must be corrected in the future. We look forward to forming government in the very near future to expedite those improvements. 
I will just mention three of them very briefly, one being in the access to information aspects of this bill. I regret to add another quote from the previous information commissioner, John Reid, that aspects of the access to information portions of this bill were “retrograde and dangerous”. While that may seem like quite an extreme statement, it certainly puts us on notice that we need to do further work in this area. In fact, the privacy and ethics House committee is working to do that very thing and we will be taking part very vigorously in that further improvement to the access to information legislation.
The next area is conflict of interest. We think some tightening needs to take place around the definition of conflict of interest. We need to add the concepts of potential and apparent conflict of interest and not simply real conflict of interest. Over the last some 15 years in Canada, in the provinces as well as through the federal government jurisprudence in the application of conflict of interest rules, it has become apparent that apparent, as well as potential, conflicts of interest need serious attention. 
We also need to tighten up the issue around gifts to public office holders where friends of public office holders, not just close personal friends, which is a much narrower field, as I think we all appreciate, should be caught for the reporting provisions of conflict of interest, gifts that might affect a conflict of interest.
Finally, the whistleblower section needs continual improvement but we will learn more about how this mechanism works through the experience of implementation. The Auditor General has made mention, quite appropriately, that we need good protection for whistleblowers so the public can be properly informed about the types of wrongdoings that might happen or might otherwise go unnoticed through the public administration. However, we also need to ensure that the systems of government work honestly in the first instance so those cases are kept to an absolute minimum.
 In particular, when we get to a situation, which we all recognize happens from time to time, where wrongdoing is not discovered, but, through the actions of a so-called whistleblower, which I would put in the category of a dedicated public servant seeing something wrong and wanting to fix it, that person, in his or her brave actions, is not subject to any reprisal from government. The bill does contain a reverse onus provision but, as we go forward, I think we will want to consider whether it is fair to put the burden on the public servant, who blew the whistle, of proving that some action by government was a reprisal. 
In conclusion, I will again congratulate all members of the House and the other place who contributed to this further evolution of accountability in government. It is work well done and it has been done at great speed, although I think the government would have wished it had gone more quickly. However, I offer the observation that the amendments are positive, constructive and will make the bill greater and the implementation of it smoother to the benefit of all Canadians.
Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging my colleague, Benoît Sauvageau. I worked with him on Bill C-2 and assisted him throughout the process. I want to make sure everyone knows what extraordinary work he did. We must all recognize that.
All parties in this House worked very hard on this. Never before has a committee sat for so many hours and so many days in so few weeks to produce a bill of great importance about accountability.
We all gained something; some of us lost something. Some of the things we wanted to see in the bill are not there, but I want to emphasize that we did gain some ground. 
Among other things, we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, succeeded in getting an independent appointment process for Elections Canada returning officers. This is very important. Such a process has already been in place in Quebec for a number of years, and now we have it at the federal level.
In fact, consultation has already been undertaken to find out if returning officers in each riding were competent, if their work was well done, if there was any partisanship, and if they had the necessary qualifications to do the job. All parliamentarians were consulted and a report was tabled. That was a huge step forward. I would like to congratulate the committee on its support for this part of the bill.
We also succeeded in eliminating rewards for whistleblowers. We found that proposal completely unacceptable. It might even have prompted some people to make false accusations in order to receive the reward. That provision was removed from the bill. I would like to thank the secretary of the Treasury Board because we discussed this and he agreed to make the change.
The parties worked together on this, in a fairly respectful manner. We also obtained the assurance that this legislation will be reviewed in five years. Typically, legislation is reviewed every 10 years. We asked that this be reviewed after five years, because the legislation is so complex that we are not entirely sure how it will be implemented. It affects so many other acts that our concern regarding the implementation of Bill C-2 has to do with the time frame and costs of its implementation.
As we know, this bill amends several other acts, but we do not know how long this will all take. Over time, we will see how this bill moves forward.
We needed an accountability act. Given the sponsorship scandal and the Gomery Commission, this House needed legislation to ensure the probity of parliamentarians. We are all honest people. We all want to represent our constituents well. There can be temptations, however, through bad influences, to act dishonestly. We saw this with the sponsorship scandal. Bill C-2 corrects part of the problem.
However, we deplore the Conservative government's decision to give in to the ultimatum given by the Senate, in order to stop the constant back and forth between the House of Commons and the Senate, and to ensure that Bill C-2 is passed quickly.
We rejected the idea of a separate Senate ethics officer, because such an officer would not be as effective as Bill C-2 could have allowed. However, as I mentioned, there has been some give and take.
The Bloc Québécois made concessions and compromises; the Liberal Party made compromises; the NDP did so as well, and the government made many compromises, to our great surprise. We always said that we would not delay the committee's work unduly, and we kept our promise by making solid proposals. But we regret that many people who would have liked to testify and submit briefs to the committee were unable to do so because of impossible time constraints. They were given barely 24 hours to write a brief and come to testify. It is very unfortunate that witnesses often had just two minutes to speak. This is unreasonable, and the work suffered as a result. When seven or eight witnesses take the time to travel together and only one or two have the chance to testify before the committee for two minutes, and when the question period is also limited to two or three minutes, this does not promote very good relations. In that sense, it was very difficult.
Many Quebeckers would have liked to testify before the committee, but were unable to do so. However, some people later testified before the Senate committee, which was a good thing. But it was also difficult in the Senate, because the hearing process moved along very quickly there as well. A bill was needed and, in my opinion, it will be passed on division. We will monitor the application of the legislation very closely, because it affects many other existing laws and makes significant changes.
We do not know whether it will be possible to make improvements to certain laws. It may be that a bill to amend each law will have to be introduced in the House of Commons. But we do not know how much time, energy and money that will involve. We hope that there will be as much collegiality among the parties and that the work will be as well done as when Bill C-2 was drafted. As I said at the start, we never held up the process. We will therefore support the bill, but we hope that this bill will truly make a difference and not just be a bogus bill.
 Do hon. members recall Bill C-11, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act? From the outset, we called for Bill C-11 to be implemented immediately since it was ready, having gone through the Senate and received royal assent. Still, approval was denied supposedly because Bill C-2 was about to be introduced. Nine months were wasted with that. Because they had no protection, whistleblowers were not able to make the disclosures they wanted to make or should have made. Moreover, Bill C-11 was not in conflict with Bill C-2, not at all. In fact, once Bill C-2 was in effect, Bill C-11 would have been complementary. 
We in the Bloc Québécois cannot understand why the government would not implement Bill C-11. It would not have cost the government anything, yet protection would have been afforded to whistleblowers, allowing them to start immediately doing their jobs. Of course, that is unfortunate, but now we are at the stage of implementing Bill C-2. This will ensure that we can count on our civil servants being able to do their jobs. If disclosures have to be made, they will be made honestly. That is actually a job requirement. They will not get paid for making disclosures. That would be unthinkable. It is the duty of civil servants to report on what is not working in their departments and on any wrongdoers who are up to no good. This marks an important victory for us. 
I thank all my colleagues on the legislative committee on Bill C-2, both from the government side and the opposition. I think we did good work together, and my wish is that the legislation will be effective and will come into force as soon as possible.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to address a few brief points on Bill C-2.
 In particular, I would like to acknowledge the cooperative work that has been done by all parties. This bill is a complex bill with a very broad scope. It very clearly is a significant step forward. I believe the bill will have some significant impact on improving accountability across the whole of the federal government.
It is important to recognize that in a minority government situation all political parties have an added responsibility to be cooperative. We saw that cooperation to a significant degree as this bill worked its way through the House. I cannot say the same for the other place, but I will come back to that in a minute.
I particularly want to acknowledge the work that our member for Winnipeg Centre, his staff and several of his colleagues within our caucus have done on this legislation. Their contribution was quite significant. I also want to mention in this regard, in some of the underpinnings of this bill, some of the actual sections of this bill, Mr. Ed Broadbent, the member for Ottawa Centre in the last Parliament, who I believe contributed a great deal of thought to the issues of accountability. He made some very significant proposals that found their way into the bill.
 I do not want to take up a lot of time, but I do want to speak negatively about the role of the other place. There was an extensive amount of delay by the Senate in getting this bill into its final form. At one point, the Senate sent back 150 amendments. In spite of its claim that these amendments were substantial, the vast majority of them were technical or of no particular meaning. The House sent back 50 amendments to the legislation, which the Senate accepted, and we are now down to this one amendment, which really is a mechanism on the part of the other place to protect itself.
 I have serious doubts that this process is democratic, especially when an unelected body is forcing this kind of an ethics office. This is going to be very expensive as opposed to the alternative of sharing an ethics office. There is no real sense of the type of mandate the Senate's ethics commissioner will have. I have serious doubts as to whether its ethics office will be as effective or as efficient as it could be had we shared an ethics commissioner. This proposal, which the House is being forced to accept, is not to the Senate's credit at all.
As I think the House has heard from several of the other members who have spoken, this is not the end of what we have to do. This bill, as I said earlier, is certainly a significant step forward. It covers off a lot of issues that should have been addressed in the past. As the President of the Treasury Board mentioned in his speech, we have to remain vigilant. This is not the end.
My party has raised serious concerns, unsuccessfully so far, with regard to political financing. What we see is a travesty, a major loophole in political financing in this country that will allow individual leadership candidates to borrow large amounts of money with no particular assurances that the money will ever be repaid. They will be allowed to take on a debt, fully expecting it will probably be forgiven, being somehow of the opinion that it is not a political contribution. This stands out.
We believe there are some serious faults with this legislation around access to information. We also feel there should have been stronger whistleblower protection. We will continue to watch these areas. Other parties have expressed concerns that the bill does not encompass enough points. We will all be watching that.
There is an automatic five year review in the bill, but I do not think we should be limited by that. If we see apparent faults in the legislation, this House should move rapidly to plug those holes.
Let me finish by thanking the other parties for their cooperation on this legislation but also recognizing that the law can only do so much. As individual members of Parliament, our personal integrity and ethics are ultimately what will guarantee that Canadians have representatives and a federal government that are truly accountable and do not breach the law or ethical standards that we are expected to meet. That falls on each member of Parliament. I urge all of us to take that into account.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order adopted earlier this day, the motion before the House is now deemed concurred in on division.
(Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in)
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2John Baird:  moved that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the third time and passed. 
Ms. Diane Ablonczy (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-28. Once passed, this bill will implement certain tax measures that were not part of last spring's budget implementation bill. That bill received royal assent on June 22, 2006.
Budget 2006 was the first budget for Canada's new government. It was well received by Canadians. However, the House should know that the best is yet to come. 
By now, members of the House are well aware of what is contained in the bill before us. I would therefore like to focus my remarks on some of the particular proposals in this bill that will open up opportunities for Canadians, opportunities that will lead to a stronger, more prosperous Canada.
I am sure that any of the members of this House who are parents would want their children to have opportunities that perhaps they did not have. Canada's new government believes in creating those new opportunities for Canadians wherever they live in this great country. That is why budget 2006 took action to help families and individuals, as well as businesses, Canada's job creators, by lowering taxes, rewarding effort and making Canada a better place in which to live and do business. 
One of our first actions was to return money to Canadians by reducing the GST. We also provided other significant personal and corporate tax relief and investments in the budget that will create jobs and boost Canada's economy by improving incentives to work, save and invest.
Most recently, we took decisive action by announcing a tax fairness plan that provides $1 billion per year in tax relief for seniors and pensioners. The tax fairness plan significantly enhances the incentives for Canadians to save and invest for family retirement security.
I want to talk today about the proposals in this bill that will set Canada on a firm track for tomorrow by providing opportunity today. I would like to start with the fitness tax credit, because our health and especially the health of our children is a key part of a prosperous future for Canada. After all, without our health, how can we enjoy all the great opportunities that this country has to offer?
There is little doubt that regular exercise improves the quality of life. Encouraging families to help their children get into the habit of being physically active is an important goal and one that is becoming increasingly important. Our new children's fitness tax credit will help families provide that encouragement to their children. In doing so, it will help our children to adopt a healthier lifestyle.
Specifically, Bill C-28 proposes that the credit cover eligible fees up to $500 for enrollment in an eligible program of physical activity effective January 1, 2007. That date is coming up pretty quickly. 
The need for this tax credit is underscored by the challenges presented by childhood obesity. In the past two decades, obesity has emerged as one of the biggest health problems facing Canada. The purpose of this credit is to facilitate access by children and youth to eligible programs of physical activity and recreation. This will be an important catalyst to help children maintain regular exercise, balanced growth and, most important, a healthy lifestyle that they can take with them into adulthood.
To help the government decide which programs of physical activity should qualify for the children's fitness tax credit, the Minister of Finance appointed an expert panel, chaired by Dr. Kellie Leitch. The panel recently presented its report. I would like to thank Dr. Leitch and the panel members for their thoughtful insight into this issue.
The government is renewing the panel's recommendations to decide which programs of physical activity should qualify for the new credit. Healthy bodies promote healthy minds, and healthy minds go hand in hand with better learning. 
This new government can help. We recognize the importance of education beyond high school in getting a good job with a secure future. Canada's new government wants to do all it can to help Canadians achieve that goal. To do that, Bill C-28 contains proposals from budget 2006 that will help with the costs of post-secondary education. Moreover, once graduates are in the workplace, there are measures from the budget that will help Canadians with some of their work related expenses. Let me briefly outline these important proposals. Let me start with education measures. 
Any of us who have helped put our children through university or college know that textbooks are expensive. To help parents and students with these costs, Bill C-28 proposes a new non-refundable tax credit to provide better tax recognition for the cost of textbooks. This measure would be effective for 2006 and subsequent taxation years.
Eligibility rules for this new tax credit will be the same as those for the education tax credit and will provide benefits to almost two million post-secondary students. We know that not all students attend school full time. In recognition of that, the textbook tax credit applies to both full time and part time students. For full time students, the amount will be $65 for each month of full time post-secondary study. For part time students, the amount will be $20 for each month of part time post-secondary study. 
What does this mean to the bottom line? To give an example, a full time student enrolled in college or university for eight months would qualify for a textbook tax credit of $520 for the year. This represents a reduction in that student's taxes of about $80. This all adds up for a student. Helping students with the cost of textbooks is one important step that Canada's new government has taken to help post-secondary students with their education related expenses, but we have done even more. 
Many hard-working students earn scholarships. To help them meet their tuition expenses, Canada's new government wants to reward them for that dedicated hard work. As members of the House may know, under current legislation only the first $3,000 in scholarship, fellowship or bursary income received by a post-secondary student is not taxed. In other words, any money received in excess of $3,000 is included as income for tax purposes.
The government believes that students should be rewarded, not penalized, for their academic excellence. That is why in budget 2006 we proposed to fully exempt all scholarship, fellowship and bursary income from tax. Once the bill before us is passed by Parliament, this measure will provide tax relief to more than 100,000 deserving post-secondary students.
This government is well aware that in today's knowledge based economy, a more educated and skilled labour force is key to Canada's competitiveness in the world. Government investments in education and training are therefore critical to productivity and economic growth.
As I have just outlined, Bill C-28 proposes measures to help students with their post-secondary education, but we also recognize that there is a need to help Canadians once they are in the workforce. That is why the government, in this bill, has introduced specific measures to help in that regard.
First, the Canada employment credit complements the personal income tax reductions introduced in budget 2006 by recognizing the extra costs to Canadians sometimes associated with joining the workforce. For example, a uniform might be required to work in a particular store or business, or special safety equipment could be needed to work on a construction site. For some Canadians, and particularly low income workers, these expenses can sometimes make the difference between being able to accept a job or not.
In the past, Canadians have raised concerns that if they have their own business or are self-employed, they can get tax deductions for certain expenses, and if they are employed, they do not. We do not think that is fair.
Bill C-28 changes that by proposing the Canada employment tax credit to help Canadians offset the costs of working. A credit of $500 is now available on employment income and that credit will double to $1,000 starting January 1, 2007. Canadians can put this money toward work expenses, like uniforms and safety equipment, and that helps working Canadians.
Of course, finding the right job is not always easy. Some Canadians find themselves stuck in low paying jobs and for one reason or another, often financial, they are not encouraged to consider the trades as a possible career source. However, as we often hear, employers are crying out for people, especially skilled workers, for example, in the construction industry.
Budget 2006 helps by proposing a new apprenticeship job creation tax credit. This credit will encourage employers to hire new apprentices to learn a skilled trade. With the measures contained in Bill C-28, effective May 2, 2006, about six months ago which was budget day, eligible employers will receive a tax credit equal to 10% of the wages paid to qualifying apprentices in the first two years of their contract, to a maximum credit of $2,000 per apprentice per year.
I explained earlier how the Canada employment credit will provide financial relief in recognition of work related expenses incurred by employees. The new government also recognizes that many people employed in the trades must have their own tools as a condition of employment. Budget 2006 provides assistance for these workers with a tax deduction of up to $500 for the cost of tools in excess of $1,000. The Canada employment credit and tools deduction together will provide tax relief to some 700,000 employed tradespeople.
Canada's new government wants to make it easier for new Canadians to pursue their dreams. Certainly reducing taxes is part of our plan. We have done that and we are not finished yet. However, as I have outlined today, helping Canadians realize their dreams is about more than just cutting taxes. It is also about helping families encourage their children to become physically active and have healthier lifestyles. It is about helping students with their education. It is about helping Canadians get and keep good jobs.
With the measures in the bill we are debating today, the new government will help Canadians accomplish those goals. I therefore encourage all members of the House to work together to pass this bill so we can get on with creating even more opportunity and an even stronger more prosperous Canada for today's generation and for those who will follow us.
Hon. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my colleague's discourse on the bill. I have two questions for her.
The first question relates to tax cuts. I want to know why her government has implemented a tax strategy that will actually penalize the poor on two counts: one, it has decreased the basic personal exemption; and two, it implemented a system where it has actually increased the tax on the poorest.
My second question is on the school book tax credit which the hon. member mentioned. Is it not true that the $500 tax credit that her government is touting so proudly is actually only $77.50 in the hands of a student?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the budget helps the poorest Canadians. In fact, it helps them to the extent that 650,000 of the poorest Canadians in our country are taken right off the tax rolls and pay no tax because of the measures in our budget.
With respect to the GST, this tax is paid by all Canadians and it falls most heavily on the poorest Canadians who pay no other tax. Cutting the GST helps the lowest income Canadians because it reduces their only tax burden. This is why, for example, the NDP campaigned in 1997 to cut the GST. It knew that would help the most vulnerable Canadians. The member's own government said in 1993 that it would scrap the GST. Why? I imagine, but I do not know because it never did it, it thought it would help Canadians.
Therefore, I find it odd that the Liberal Party, which wants to help vulnerable Canadians, would criticize the only measure that would help the lowest income Canadians.
With respect to the textbook tax credit, all these measures add up. They again help the lowest income Canadians because they give the biggest credit to them. All these measures help students. They help people who want to get an education, to get ahead, to get the skills to enter our workforce.
I urge the member, instead of criticizing these measures to help students and low income Canadians, to get behind them.
Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance referred to many new tax credits provided in this bill. However, this legislation does not change the tax credit for child care, and this is where Quebeckers are adversely affected.
Since Quebeckers decided to collectively establish a public child care program funded with their own taxes, Quebec parents are claiming much less of that tax credit because, instead of shelling out $25, $30 or $40 per day, they now only pay $7. They do pay the difference, but they do so through their taxes. This means that the federal treasury is making savings of $250 million annually.
Does the parliamentary secretary think it would be just and fair to respect the choice made collectively by Quebeckers to set up their own public child care program, and to give back the money saved by the federal treasury to the Quebec government, so that it can invest it in its child care initiative? Otherwise, if Quebeckers really want to be able to make their own collective choices with their taxes, is taking charge of their destiny and becoming a sovereign state the only solution for them? 
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that matters of child care are under provincial jurisdiction. I think Quebeckers are pleased with the arrangements in their province. I understand the $7 a day child care is supported in Quebec, even though other taxes must go into this system.
With respect to the federal government's contribution, the member will also know that matters of transfers between the federal government and the provinces are under active consideration. We are the first government to acknowledge that there has been an imbalance in the past in these transfers. 
There have been several blue ribbon studies now on this issue. The federal and provincial finance ministers will be meeting next week on the issue. There will be accommodations reached in the next few months. I know the member will be anxiously watching to see what those are. We will have something to say once those are announced.
The Speaker: There will be five minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments when the debate on this matter is resumed. 
We will now move to statements by members and we will begin with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

Statements By Members
Cariboo—Prince GeorgeMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have always considered myself to be one of the luckiest MPs in Canada because of my tremendous staff who support me in every way, every day. They constantly seem to be working to make me look good, and they do a great job.
Every once in a while we have to take the time to thank our staffs, so I want to do that today.
I want to thank: in my Ottawa office, Theresa Bell who is such a wonderful employee and does a great job; in my Prince George office, Jeanne Clough, Gloria Cyr and Soraya Litke who handle a very busy office with such great ability that really makes me look good; and in my Williams Lake office, Walt Cobb who has just a wealth of expertise and history with the city and district of Williams Lake. 
I very much thank all of them for doing such a great job for me. It is an honour to be associated with such great people.
SomaliaMr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently the Hiran region of Somalia was devastated by torrential rain and subsequent flooding. The Shabelle River is overspilling its banks and over 70,000 people have been displaced. The death toll, which today stands at nearly 200, will continue to rise.
The Somali government has warned of an imminent humanitarian disaster if aid agencies do not rapidly deliver food and other essential items to the region. Many of the roads which will allow for the delivery of said aid are becoming increasingly inaccessible.
In York--South Weston and throughout the greater Toronto area thousands of Canadians of Somali origin are worried and doing all they can to help their loved ones. 
I am confident that all members of the House will join with me in urging the government, through the capable offices of CIDA and the Minister of International Cooperation, to do all we can to supply Somalia with the malaria tents, water purification systems, cholera medication and food products it so desperately needs.
Somalia needs Canada's help and we must act now.
National Safe Driving WeekMr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this year, National Safe Driving Week is from December 1 to 7. In the past 50 years, some 200,000 people have lost their lives on Canada's roads. This is a staggering figure and exceeds the total number of Canadians who were killed during both great world wars.
During National Safe Driving Week, it is our duty, as elected members, to remind our constituents to be careful and responsible on the roads, especially as the holidays draw near.
It is a season in which we enjoy good times and good meals, and often indulge in a drink or two. Although there are increasingly fewer victims of car accidents in which alcohol is involved, the fact remains that driving while impaired is still the cause of far too many tragedies on the road. 
I am calling on everyone to be responsible and not to drink and drive, or to call a designated driver service such as Operation Red Nose in areas where that service is provided.
LiteracyMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and congratulate Carol Windley of Nanaimo for her recent nomination to the short list for the 2006 Giller prize. Carol's collection of short stories, Home Schooling, is set on rural Vancouver Island and the Pacific northwest.
This is a quote from Carol on her home, “I find that this part of the world with the forests, the shorelines and all that complexity that's available to the imagination, lends itself wonderfully to writing fiction”, and I could not agree more.
It is unfortunate that in the same month we celebrated Carol's achievement in Nanaimo--Cowichan, we learned the Conservatives had cut literacy programs. This may end many people's opportunities to develop the skills to read and enjoy Carol's work.
From youth whose home life made school difficult, to adults whose reading skills have grown rusty, to brain injured people relearning the most basic skills, literacy programs are important to everyone.
I call on the Conservative government to reinstate the funds for literacy programs so everyone can have the opportunity to read Carol's book.
Liberal Leadership ConventionMr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, no matter what their heritage, religion or social class, in my Canada everybody is welcome to be involved in political life.
During their leadership race, Liberal delegates were encouraged to not vote based on who was best for the job, but based on racist and bigoted stereotypes.
It is being widely reported today in the media that Bob Rae was a target of anti-Semitic attacks during the Liberal leadership race, motivated at least in part by the fact that his wife is Jewish.
Reports say that in an attempt to bolster another candidate, the strategists approached Rae's own wife telling her not to vote for Rae “because his wife is Jewish”. The report goes on to say that Mrs. Perly Rae informed the delegate that she in fact was that Jewish wife who was in question.
On the government side of the House, we believe in a Canada that accepts all and encourages all to be involved in politics. It is too bad that some members of the Liberal Party do not agree.
Tourism IndustryMr. Ken Boshcoff (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement by the government of its intention to cancel the GST visitor rebate program is a serious blow to the tourism industry in the ridings of rural Canada.
The government claims that only 3% of visitors to Canada take advantage of this program, but the facts show that a majority of tourist outfitters in northwestern Ontario use the rebate system. The finance ministry does not track GST rebates that are issued by tourist camps and tour businesses, so it is impossible for it to know the true participation rate.
U.S. tourists visiting my region alone generate $396 million of economic activity each year and employ more than 12,000 people in the area. The cutting of this program represents yet another setback to an industry that is already challenged by decreased visits due to the high Canadian dollar and increasing border security.
I call on all members of Parliament to support our tourism industry by voting against the cancellation of the GST visitor rebate program.
Government PoliciesMr. Colin Mayes (Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago I arrived in Ottawa to provide good government to my constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap, and all Canadians. After 10 months, I have come to realize that what I believe is good government is at odds with members opposite.
A former statesman said, “a wise and frugal government which shall restrain citizens from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to pursue individual enterprise and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government”. The three principles of this statement are law and order, freedom of choice and tax fairness.
Our new government has introduced over a dozen new bills to strengthen the laws and invested in policing to protect our citizens. Our new government's child care allowance gives Canadian families freedom of choice to pursue their priorities. Finally, our tax fairness initiatives are leaving more money on the table for Canadian families.
I stand on this side of the House because Conservatives believe in these principles and are delivering good government to Canadians.
Madeleine JuneauThierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to acknowledge the contribution of an exceptional woman from the southwestern part of Montreal, whose vitality and determination amaze me. Her quest for excellence and her visionary spirit very clearly show that we are all capable, in 2006, of achieving our goals and making our dreams come true.
I want to congratulate Sister Madeleine Juneau, who was named the 2006 businesswoman of Quebec in the category of not for profit employees or executives.
Madeleine Juneau is the director general of the Maison Saint-Gabriel. Her visionary spirit and her quest for excellence are evident in the original approach she took to developing the museum's site and programming. It was because of this experience that she was able to contribute significantly to improving Pointe-Saint-Charles, a neighbourhood she works hard for and is proud of.
The Maison Saint-Gabriel is one of the oldest existing homes on the island of Montreal and one of the best examples in Quebec of French regime architecture. It was purchased in 1668 by Marguerite Bourgeoys and was used as a home for the Filles du Roy. 
JusticeMrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, late last night three Winnipeg police officers were shot while executing a drug warrant. I would like to express my heartfelt sympathies to the officers and their families. It is unacceptable that officers are put in these kinds of situations, acting on behalf of Canadians.
Our government stands solidly in support of assisting our police officers because they are our front line protection against crimes that are destroying our communities.
Liberal and NDP MPs have gutted our legislation to restrict house arrest for dangerous criminals, just like these drug dealers. They are also holding up our bill on increased mandatory minimum sentences on gun crime.
When will they stop concerning themselves about the rights of criminals and support our efforts to restore balance in the justice system by supporting victims and police officers who protect us?
As the mother of a police officer, I would encourage all members in the House to stop being soft on crime and start standing up for taxpaying citizens.
Teen SuicideMr. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring awareness to the issue of teen suicide. According to Statistics Canada, suicide accounts for 24% of all deaths among 15 to 24 year olds and 16% among 16 to 44 year olds in our country.
In the words of my constituent, Chantal Fleming, who lost her only son Ryan to suicide:
 Until your life has been devastated by the suicide loss of your child, family member or friend, a person can never truly comprehend these statistics; they are simply too chilling for our minds to understand. 
We must break the silence on teen suicide. We must also look to provide services and support networks to those who need it most, teenagers and young adults. Furthermore, we need to develop better programs for those who are bereaved by the suicide of a loved one.
In memory of Ryan Fleming, I call on all hon. members to help raise awareness of this devastating reality and to work together to help develop and improve long term support solutions.
Standing Committee on Official LanguagesMrs. Sylvie Boucher (Beauport—Limoilou, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my gratitude to the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages for the work they are doing with their cross-Canada tour. This tour is giving us the opportunity to learn about the achievements of francophone and anglophone minority language communities, as well as the challenges they face. 
The committee is an important part of our parliamentary system, and on behalf of the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages, I salute this initiative.
I would also like to thank all of the community representatives who appeared before the committee during its stops in eastern and western Canada. Our new government's commitment to these communities is steadfast. Their vitality is an essential part of our linguistic duality.
This is the first time the committee has travelled to meet francophone and anglophone minority language communities, and it happened under a Conservative government.
HomelessnessMs. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as winter approaches, the situation for the homeless in my communities of New Westminster, Port Moody and Coquitlam worsens. In New Westminster alone, the number of my constituents who are homeless has risen an incredible 33% in recent years. Not only is it unacceptable, it is disgraceful that people are sleeping on the streets in my riding or on the banks of the Fraser River or underneath the SkyTrain overpass. 
There are some wonderful organizations, including the Tri-Cities Housing Coalition, Hope for Freedom Society and the New Westminster Homeless Coalition, that work so hard for affordable housing and for the homeless, but without action from the government they can only do so much.
 Because the government fails to support housing projects, many organizations will have to scale back or shut down, maybe even before Christmas, as their funds run out.
When will the government enact a national housing strategy so that no Canadian has no other choice but to sleep on the streets?
Aboriginal AffairsMs. Tina Keeper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, December 10, is International Human Rights Day. It is a day on which the entire international community will both celebrate the human rights achievements made over this past century and acknowledge the human rights that we must address.
I wish to remind Canadians that they do not have to look so far to find issues with human rights, as there is the issue of first nations child welfare. The national Wen: De Report on first nations child welfare has provided Indian and Northern Affairs Canada with an evidence based solution to redress the inequity in child welfare funding.
 Despite acknowledging that the current federal funding is inadequate, the government has not implemented the Wen: De Report recommendations.
The report also highlights the jurisdictional and departmental disputes involving the federal and provincial governments that have meant first nations children with disabilities or complex medical needs are denied or face serious delay in services available to other Canadian children.
 The tragic story of a first nations child named Jordan who died because he did not receive access to medical services in a timely way was presented at the United Nations in the Jordan's principle, calling for an end to these disputes.
Carlo BenedettiMr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Carlo Benedetti, a resident of my riding and a master's student in chemical engineering at the Université de Sherbrooke, won first place at the international conference of the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering, ISPE, held in Orlando, Florida, on November 6.
Carlo Benedetti won first place in the graduate division for the quality and presentation of his project, which was about a new method for the analysis of knowledge acquisition processes to improve the efficiency of prescription drug production. 
Mr. Benedetti undertook the study of this process as part of a project supervised by Professor Abatzoglou, thanks to the financial participation of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, the Université de Montréal and the Université de Sherbrooke.
I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Carlo Benedetti for his remarkable success at the international level and for having represented us so honourably.
HealthMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, constituents from my riding are petitioning the government to implement tax incentives to encourage Canadians to take out gym memberships.
 They believe it is time for the government to focus on prevention rather than treatment as the overarching principle of our health care system. They rightly believe that, in addition to lowering health care costs, this would mean physically fit citizens who are happier and more productive in their personal and professional lives.
Although tax incentives for gym memberships will not empower all citizens to lead healthy lifestyles, they will help eliminate unnecessary financial barriers to physical activity for many. The government should therefore implement such a tax incentive in its next budget.
Softwood LumberMs. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here in the House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and tell members that a lot of hard work and negotiations went into the softwood lumber agreement. Not only am I proud that Bill C-24 passed, but I am also proud to be part of a government that does what it says it is going to do and works as a team.
On Wednesday I was disappointed to see all but two Liberal MPs stand in the House of Commons and vote against the softwood lumber agreement. This is shameful, given the support for the agreement by the provinces, including the province of Quebec, where the new Liberal leader is from, and the support from industry, labour and unions in Quebec.
 How could the Liberals not support an agreement that is obviously in the best interests of Canada? This further demonstrates the Liberal tradition of playing political games. By not supporting the deal, the Liberals are putting their own partisan interests ahead of the needs of all Canadians.

Oral Questions
RCMP CommissionerHon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts are very clear, and they were clear long before last Monday. 
There were two letters indicating that Commissioner Zaccardelli was about to change his testimony. One was even addressed to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. The minister's officials knew that the commissioner was going to change his testimony. In addition, Commissioner Zaccardelli says he told the minister himself directly.
Why, then, is the minister continuing to maintain that he knew nothing? How can he continue to deny the truth?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the ones denying the truth.
This government is continuing, as always, to tell the truth about this case. It is clear that Commissioner Zaccardelli expressed the desire to testify a second time before the public safety committee. This was obviously his choice and his responsibility. It would have been totally irresponsible for the minister or the government to prevent such testimony by the commissioner, who has taken responsibility for his actions and tendered his resignation.
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the minister and that parliamentary secretary can keep saying ”the dog ate my homework”, but it is now painfully evident that the minister knew that Canadians were being misled and did nothing about it. The minister is desperately trying to change the subject by saying that “anything I could have done would have been called political interference”. This is nonsense. 
Canadians want to know why, when there was evidence they were being deceived, the minister did absolutely nothing to get them the correct information. Why did he aid and abet this deception?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government found out that the commissioner wanted to clarify his testimony at the same time and in the same way as everyone else, and of course we respected the commissioner's right to do so.
 The real question is, why is it that the Liberals favour political interference in the operations of the RCMP? Why is it that the former Liberal solicitor general, the member for Malpeque, said with respect to the RCMP investigation into the Liberal income trust fiasco and scandal that he “felt strongly that the very next day the minister at the time of public security should have asked for” the commissioner's “removal”.
 Why is that he wanted the government to fire the RCMP Commissioner for investigating the Liberals?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, here is what former RCMP legal counsel Alain-Robert Nadeau said:
 Personally, I can see only two alternatives that would restore the confidence of Canadians: a royal commission of inquiry into the operations of the RCMP or, more simply, the minister's resignation. Such is the price of our freedom. 
I would like to know what the minister thinks of Mr. Nadeau's advice? 
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the Liberals continue to try to distract public attention away from the fact that the entire Arar fiasco occurred under their watch. Mr. Arar was sent to Syria, was tortured in a Syrian jail, a former Liberal minister of foreign affairs denied that he was being tortured, and all of this happened under their watch.
 Canadians are still waiting for a little patina of humility from the Liberal Party. When are the Liberals going to stand up and apologize for the mistreatment of Canadians abroad under their watch?
Mr. Mark Holland (Ajax—Pickering, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the parliamentary secretary take this question seriously: why? Why did the government wait until outrage gripped the nation before it acted?
 Despite contradiction after contradiction, a letter foretelling it all, ministerial meetings with the commissioner and urgings from his own cabinet, the Prime Minister did nothing. Worse than nothing, the Prime Minister gave the commissioner his unqualified, unreserved support through it all. 
Why? Why did the Prime Minister do nothing when he knew everything?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, those two words “do nothing” could characterize the former Liberal regime and what it did not do on this file. 
Contrast that with the response from this government. Immediately when Justice O'Connor's report was made public, we accepted all 23 recommendations, which puts in place a far better system, one that the Liberals had presided over that was broken and unattended to.
 We also said very clearly that we wanted to deal with the matter of Mr. Arar and the compensation. That discussion is going on this very week.
 We have a better system in place now because we fixed the mess that they left behind.
Mark Holland: Mr. Speaker, while we were pushing to get Maher Arar out of prison, pushing the RCMP for answers, and calling the Arar inquiry, the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister were labelling Mr. Arar a terrorist, and still to this day have yet to apologize.
We now know the deputy to the Minister of Public Safety got the letter. The parliamentary secretary got the letter. The commissioner spoke to him about the letter, and in early November the minister knew it all.
Did the minister sit on this information and do nothing or was he muzzled? Is the Prime Minister the reason the commissioner was protected?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, a former Liberal, whom we all respect, used to stand in this chamber for some 40 years and say that he rejected the premise of the question. 
I do not just reject the premise, I reject the method in which that member, every time he asks a question, first puts forward an absolute falsehood, and that is the kindest word I can use, and then proceeds with a question. 
There is no quote anywhere where anyone on this side called Mr. Arar a terrorist. As a matter of fact, I asked this question when I was in opposition: “--one thing is clear: his basic rights have been violated. Why hasn't federal government demanded an apology from the Syrian government?” I also wanted to know why the government could let that man stay in jail for so long.
The EnvironmentMonique Guay: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that she will soon be announcing environmental programs that will involve public participation. Yet against her own officials' advice, her government slashed programs, such as EnerGuide, that were working.
Given that she herself created this program vacuum, will the Minister of the Environment acknowledge that her ideological stubbornness and rash actions have wasted a great deal of time and now force her to start back at square one by announcing new programs?
Jason Kenney: No, Mr. Speaker, I reject the question. 
We saw that, under the Liberals, millions of dollars were wasted on programs that did not deliver tangible results. Even the Liberal Party's Kyoto program resulted in a 35% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In that sense, most of those programs were ineffective. The government has targeted the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with much more effective programs. 
[Interjection]
Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, the minister told the Senate Committee on the Environment that the government had not reviewed environmental programs. Yet the minister subsequently admitted that the Privy Council Office had conducted such an evaluation.
Will the minister agree that she could have avoided making such contradictory statements if, before abolishing the former programs, she had considered the evaluation her own officials had conducted, which concluded that the existing programs were effective?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. Yesterday, the minister told the committee that the former Liberal government had not analyzed all the climate change programs. This minister and her department have analyzed and evaluated the programs, which have been changed to make sure they are effective and produce real results, meaning a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This was not done under the Liberals, because emissions went up. We will continue to take action.
Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that industries will not be the only ones to make efforts in the fight against climate change, and that consumers will also have to do their share. In its economic statement, the government said we must ensure that no industry has to bear excessive costs. 
Is the minister quietly preparing the ground before announcing to consumers that they will have to pay the share that she will not have the courage to demand from oil companies?
Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the answer is an unqualified no. My hon. colleague has just replied to a series of questions from the Bloc Québécois. Let us be clear. The previous government put us in a situation where we were able to determine that nothing was working. Some programs were in place. We looked at them and realized that they also were not working. Therefore, we are going to take appropriate measures to make things work.
Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, does the approach used by the  Minister of the Environment not illustrate yet again that she intends to once again favour her friends, the big oil companies, when a fair approach based on the polluter pays principle would require industries to fully assume the costs of the pollution that they create?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we need the Bloc Québécois' cooperation. It might be a good thing for our friends opposite to go and see their big brothers in Quebec City, and follow their example by demanding a clean air act.
This is what my colleague, the Minister of the Environnement, proposed. As for me, I am waiting for the Bloc Québécois to endorse and support this project.
HomelessnessHon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this country has incredible wealth, and yet the number of homeless people continues to increase. There are some 30,000 homeless people in Toronto and tens of thousands in Vancouver, Victoria, Gatineau, Montreal and other cities across Canada. The number of homeless people in the country is equivalent to the population of Windsor.
Why does the Prime Minister not declare a state of emergency, as the NDP has suggested, before there are more deaths on the streets of one of the richest countries in the world?
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the problem of the homeless, and that is why one of the first things this government did was to extend a program for the homeless until March of next year by giving it a cash injection of $135 million.
We have even increased the grants to programs for the homeless by $37 million because our government is concerned about the challenges facing the homeless.
Jack Layton: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government has closed its eyes to the growing situation of homelessness in this country. The groups that are out there trying to help people have been told that they will have not a penny after March.
The result is that the boards of directors are having to close down their operations now, when thousands of people are on the streets. This is absolutely callous. The government is wrapping it up in this Christmas wrapping that somehow it is going to come up with a new plan in the future. Meanwhile, people are dying on the streets of this city.
We call for the declaration of a state of emergency so that funds can flow immediately to the communities. It is a power that the government has and it should use it.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, obviously all Canadians are concerned about the challenges faced by people without adequate housing. Perhaps we could call for a state of rhetorical restraint on the part of that leader, who once accused the former prime minister of personally being responsible for killing people who died on the streets as a result of unfortunate circumstances.
We are acting, which is why we renewed $135 million in homeless programming through to the end of this fiscal year and increased it by $37 million. We are looking at yet further improvements to programming for the homeless.
RCMP CommissionerAnthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Press reported that three ministers, including the Minister of Public Safety, had asked the Prime Minister to fire the RCMP commissioner earlier this fall.
Furthermore, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Foreign Affairs refuse to comment on the matter.
Was the Prime Minister pressured by his ministers to fire Mr. Zaccardelli, yes or no?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, that story is a complete and utter fabrication.
Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being asked to swallow a buffet of nonsense on this issue. Not only that, even after the commissioner discussed his desire to correct the public record on such a sensitive matter, the minister expects Canadians to believe he did not ask what needed to be corrected and why.
How on earth could the commissioner hold the confidence of this government through all this, if the minister had done his job?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, the entire government has done its job related to the Arar mess that was created by and presided over by the federal Liberals. They did nothing.
We have accepted all 23 recommendations of the O'Connor report. We have also given instructions to deal with the question of compensation for Mr. Arar, which according to Justice O'Connor should also include an apology. The 23 recommendations have led to enhanced capabilities between the RCMP and CSIS and other agencies. Our situation in terms of safety and security for our citizens is better now than it was under the Liberals.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing this Prime Minister is good at, it is the excessive control he has over communications. Whether it be speeches, announcements or travel allowances, everything is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office.
Now he would have us believe that he learned that the RCMP commissioner was going to change his testimony just this week, when his Minister of Public Safety knew about this more than a month ago. Who is telling the truth?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious to Canadians that the reason members opposite continue to go on senseless fishing expeditions on items that are absolutely obvious is to try to hide the fact that when they had this file, they had a situation where Mr. Arar was suffering in a Syrian prison.
Members opposite had a situation where one of their ministers was even raising the question of whether or not Mr. Arar was tortured. They had a situation where their solicitor general would not write a letter to the Syrians to say that the man should be out of jail. It was horrifying how they mishandled this file. That is why they are trying to hide that fact.
David McGuinty: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's original testimony did not hold water and each witness who came to the committee subsequently poked more holes in it. The commissioner and the committee knew there were problems, but what Canadians are concerned about is why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety did not.
Does the Prime Minister, a practising information czar, really expect Canadians to believe he knew nothing of this matter until Monday of this week? How is it that this one particular file slipped through his iron grip, and why is he now desperately distancing himself from it?
Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I assume the member opposite knows that the commissioner has submitted his resignation and that will be effective as of the 15th. What he told all of us on Monday was that he wanted to correct some contradictions. He realized there was some risk in him doing so with regard to some errors he had made. I do respect the fact that he did the honourable thing after clearing up the contradictions, which everybody found out about on Monday.
We still do not know why one of the former Liberal government's ministers, according to Justice O'Connor, raised doubts in the minds of Canadians that Mr. Arar was even tortured, and why its former solicitor general would not write a letter to the Syrians to get him out of jail. We do not know that.
Agriculture and Agri-FoodMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the 82nd UPA convention yesterday, like me, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food heard farmers' requests to adapt programs to the needs of Quebec farmers, especially in the grain, pork and dairy sectors.
In this context, does the minister intend to change the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program, or CAIS, so that it can truly meet the needs of farmers, as he has so often promised?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure this House that this new government will always listen to farmers and that Quebec will always have its fair share.
This goes for the potato farmers of Saint-Amable, as well as the pork producers, beef farmers, dairy farmers and so on.
In fact, Quebec will receive over $400 million.
André Bellavance: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues should have read their press review this morning.
In the wake of recognizing Quebeckers as a nation, UPA president Laurent Pellerin is calling on the minister to be consistent, open and flexible, and to recognize the distinct nature of Quebec agriculture.
Does the minister not agree, in order to prove that the recognition of Quebeckers as a nation was not just meaningless words, this recognition must be acted on, with specific programs that reflect the distinct nature of Quebec agriculture?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that, in 16 years of existence, his party has done absolutely nothing to help Canadian farmers.
This new government listens to our farmers and is committed to helping farmers across Canada, including those in Quebec.
Aeronautics IndustryMr. Robert Vincent (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government released its research and innovation strategy, more specifically as it regards the aeronautics industry. However, according to Bell Helicopter's director of development, Michel Legault, this is not enough to compete against foreign competitors, and the federal government must announce its plan at the earliest opportunity. 
The Minister of Industry made a commitment to review the technology partnerships Canada program. Considering that the aeronautics industry is anxious, what is he waiting for to make his plans public? 
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously an issue we are very concerned about and I know the member opposite shares our concern. What we are trying to do is build an economy in Canada with low taxation and with low regulation that will help encourage economic development and create more jobs.
Robert Vincent: Mr. Speaker, delaying the announcement of the federal plan is creating insecurity among decision makers, and this is bad for the future of the aeronautics industry. “We are stamping our feet”, says Mr. Legault.
Will the minister hear this call from the aeronautics industry, and will he put an end to this uncertainty by implementing the plan developed and proposed by the Bloc Québécois?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has indicated the government's continued and ongoing support for the aeronautics and defence industries. I know this issue is tremendously important in Quebec but it is also important in Ontario. 
The minister has been looking at enhancements and improvements that we can make to the technology partnerships program so it can meet the needs of a competitive Canadian industry. Aeronautics employs some 75,000 people in Canada and the defence industries employ more. This is incredibly important and the minister will be coming forward, in short order--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Don Valley East.
Status of WomenMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election, the Prime Minister promised to protect the rights of women. However, the Conservative government has done nothing but turn its back on Canadian women. The court challenges program has been slashed. All but two of the Status of Women regional offices have been closed. In my riding, the Association of Women of Indian Origin in Canada depends on federal funding to do its important work.
Could the minister guarantee this organization's funding will not be axed?
Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we can guarantee that the $10.8 million for women's programs will continue to be there. It is there now and it will be there in the next fiscal year. 
The good news is that all the money we found in streamlining the administration will be available in the next fiscal year, which is $5 million more to help the organizations that are actually making a difference in the lives of women in the community.
Yasmin Ratansi: Mr. Speaker, I asked a specific question about a specific program and all I received from the minister was a repeated blah, blah, blah. I say shame on the minister.
Why will she not have some spine and admit that the $5 million that she axed from the budget is a cut? She does not understand math. It is not a reinvestment. 
We now hear that the National Association of Women and the Law is concerned about the future of its funding. Why will the minister not have some courage and admit that she signed off on these cuts and is trying to camouflage the facts?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that we have had meetings with immigrant women organizations that are actually doing work for immigrant women. They have been in to see us and we have told them that $5 million in additional money will be available. They indicated that they were not told that by the opposition party. Once they knew the true facts, they said that it was good news.
We have been very clear. As a result of savings in administration, this government is putting the money back into women, not into Liberal Party friends.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's shocking cuts to Status of Women have huge implications for aboriginal women and their children. The Native Women's Association, which is largely funded by Status of Women, was before committee this week to raise the alarm that its funding may be next on the chopping block.
Could the minister guarantee that the funding for this organization will not be cut?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition party, when they cut, they took the money and removed it from being accessible to women. This government found savings in government spending and the money will go to women. It is very simple. A cut is made when there is no money and an increase is when the savings go directly to women. 
Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, cancelling the Kelowna accord, cuts in the funding for aboriginal languages, cuts in the first nations stop smoking programs and $200 million in cuts to improve access to early learning and child care for first nations.
This Sunday marks International Human Rights Day. The theme is fighting poverty. Instead of cutting programs, why will the government not take real steps to address aboriginal poverty?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite alarming that the member opposite would ask that question. The Liberals had 13 years to ensure that the rights of aboriginal women would be there. In fact, it is this government that introduced matrimonial rights for aboriginal women, a fundamental right that every Canadian woman, including aboriginal women, should have recognized.
AgricultureMr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the new Government of Canada reacted quickly regarding the golden nematode issue, so that the regulated zone was only restricted to the region of Saint-Amable. This quick and decisive action allowed trading activities worth several millions of dollars to Quebec's agriculture to resume. However, producers in Saint-Amable are quite concerned, following the collapse of their markets. 
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell this House what the government intends to do to help these producers?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question. It is with great pleasure that, yesterday, the minister and I announced a plan to help producers in Saint-Amable who are affected by the golden nematode issue. 
The federal government is contributing $5.4 million to this plan, including $2 million in new money that will be paid to the 28 producers affected.
Indeed, unlike the Bloc Québécois, we are in a position to provide support to producers in Saint-Amable.
Aboriginal AffairsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the Inuit of Nunavut filed a $1 billion lawsuit against the federal government this week. The Conservatives want to spend billions of dollars to support Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic in the face of global warming.
Will the minister confirm that he will invest at least a part of that $1 billion on the people of Nunavut on whose survival and prosperity Canada has depended for its claim of sovereignty?
Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government has been very supportive of the people of Nunavut and will continue to be. Unfortunately, a lawsuit was launched against the Government of Canada this week. It was filed in a court of justice in Nunavut. I must also suggest that the Nunavut Premier Okalik has expressed public disappointment with this course of action.
Having said that, the matter is before the court, we will address it as such and we will continue to be supportive of the people of Nunavut.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the lack of federal commitment means that less than 45% of Inuit have the jobs that were promised in the settlement agreement. This costs Canada $65 million a year to import southern workers into Nunavut and yet Nunavut has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. It does not include the addiction, suicide and health costs associated with unemployment, nor the lost wages to Inuit of $123 million a year.
Will the minister explain how this situation makes any economic sense?
Rod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada believes in the people of Nunavut, which is why we have invested over $200 million this year alone in a housing project that will bring a lot of economic development to Nunavut. The people have been facing a housing crisis for some time, which is why the government has taken action on this front.
Publications Assistance ProgramKen Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has recently announced that it will not be renewing its funding of $15 million for the publications assistance program. This cut will cause severe hardship for hundreds of small papers across the country as they are not eligible for support, such as those provided to magazines, film and television. This cut takes direct aim at rural communities and will stop many presses permanently.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage immediately address this punishing funding cut?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, the PAP does support publishing, community newspapers and farm publications. Heritage Canada will continue to provide the $45 million. 
We understand that Canada Post has been in discussions with the Minister of Transport and hopefully will find some resolution to continue the support to those important publications.
Ken Boshcoff: Mr. Speaker, a $15 million cut punishes rural Canada. The Fort Frances Times, the Atikokan Progress and the Rainy River Record are papers in my riding that depend on the publications assistance program.
The integral services they provide in their communities are being put into severe jeopardy by this funding cut. Where will local businesses promote their wares? How will local charities advertise their fundraising events?
Certainly members can understand the harmful effects of this cut to this program.
When will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop the bleeding?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, expressed in her response to the first question, we are looking at this file. We consider that it is extremely important for the viability of our small rural communities and we will, in due course, announce the course of action that we intend to take.
The EnvironmentMr. Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré-Mercier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development has just concluded its work on my private member's bill to ensure that Canada respects its Kyoto protocol commitments.
This bill, which represents tangible action today for the benefit of future generations, will therefore go to third reading. The members of the three opposition parties voted in favour of the bill, but Conservatives members said no to Kyoto.
Does the Prime Minister realize he is again saying no to the Kyoto protocol and no to a better future for all Canadians?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating ourselves, hon. members have to consider not just what was said by our party, but also what the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said, that the bill as submitted was not a plan that could help us achieve what we should be achieving. 
Together we have developed a new plan and I hope that the people in the opposition will be in favour of it and help us achieve our objectives.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, for his information, the people in the opposition, as he called them, voted in favour of the Kyoto protocol. 
My bill talks about assuming our responsibilities for environmental issues: the Conservatives voted against that. It talks about limiting the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere: the Conservatives voted against that. It talks about setting performance standards to avoid emissions: the Conservatives voted against that. It talks about respecting the Kyoto protocol: the Conservatives voted against that. It talks about a better future for everyone: the Conservatives voted against that too.
What right do they have to go against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians who are saying enough is enough and that it is time to take action?
Lawrence Cannon: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the hon. member did not put as much energy into developing his plan and program in order to achieve some objectives.
Again, we want to have a comprehensive approach. We know that some 5,900 Canadians die every year from problems related to pollution emissions and greenhouse gases.
The purpose of the bill we have introduced is to correct these things and we are calling on the hon. members to support us in this.
ImmigrationMs. Meili Faille (Vaudreuil-Soulanges, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian section of Amnesty International, the UN Committee Against Torture handed down favourable decisions concerning allegations of torture made by individuals who were refused the right to seek asylum in Canada.
In the Falcon Rios case, the Committee Against Torture asked Canada to implement a refugee appeal division. It reiterated the request in its latest decision.
Will the government commit to helping these people out in light of the humanitarian considerations articulated by a respected body of the United Nations?
We have a lot to learn from the Maher Arar affair.
Mr. Ed Komarnicki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canada has one of the finest refugee programs in the word. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner has said so and has indicated that other countries model on this program. 
We have various appeal routes that can be taken to the Federal Court by leave to appeal and actually appeal. We also have a humanitarian and compassionate ground application process that can be taken by applicants at any time. It is certainly a system that we are proud of. 
Meili Faille: Mr. Speaker, given that serious errors can occur, does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intend to follow up on the UN Committee Against Torture's request to implement an appeal mechanism to review and examine the basis for decisions to grant or refuse refugee status? 
Ed Komarnicki: Mr. Speaker, we are always looking at ways to make the system better than it is, but we can say that the system has various aspects in it for the present situation to be looked at on its merits, not only in the Federal Court of Appeal but also through humanitarian and compassionate ground applications, pre-removal risk assessment applications. When we look at the system, we have to look at all of it in conjunction before a decision is made to implement just one aspect of it, which would add more delay to the process and extra time to get it determined.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Gary Merasty (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was president of the National Citizens Coalition, he said, “Gag laws are unconstitutional and unenforceable”. He has shown time and time again his hypocrisy knows no bounds. Not only does his government gag the Wheat Board from advocating on behalf of its single desk, but next week it will fire the president for doing his job.
This behaviour is scandalous. When will the Prime Minister cut the hypocrisy, obey the law, rescind the letter to Mr. Measner and stop threatening him for doing his job?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we are finally bringing some openness and transparency to this issue. I have to congratulate the Treasury Board president and his parliamentary secretary for the tremendous job they have done in bringing Bill C-2 through the House. Now we will finally have access to information for the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will be able to find out what is going on there. They will finally also be able to find out the role of the member for Wascana in putting farmers in jail in the 1990s.
Status of WomenJoy Smith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women recently announced some important changes to the status of women program. There has been much misrepresentation from opposition MPs who cannot understand that spending 31¢ to deliver $1 is not helping women in their communities.
Could the minister explain the changes our government has made and tell us what she is doing for Canadian women?
Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker, only a party that believes that women are weak would deceive and mislead the same women in Canada.
It comes down to very simple math. It was costing 31¢ to deliver $1. Now it will cost 17¢. Thirty-one minus 17 means 14¢ more for women. It is very simple. There is no program cut. It is simple math. Savings in administration mean more money for women in Canada.
Shipbuilding IndustryMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is an industry in this country which could provide thousands of jobs and economic opportunity right across the country, but the government continues to ignore this industry. It is the shipbuilding industry.
The government is in negotiations with the EFTA countries to reduce and eliminate the tariffs of ships built in other countries coming into Canada.
My question is for the hon.Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. Why is the government in negotiation with other countries to put the final death knell in our shipbuilding industry?
Helena Guergis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his valuable contribution on this file, but the fact is that Canada can no longer afford to continue with the Liberal policy of complacency with respect to free trade agreements. Since NAFTA almost 13 years ago, we have seen only three agreements, while other countries, such as Australia and the United States are moving at a much faster pace.
With respect to the shipbuilding industry, the hon. member works very closely with it, as has our government. We will continue to work with the industry very closely, hear its concerns, ensure they are addressed and only proceed in an agreement that is to the best benefit for all Canadians.
Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes that, then why has the industry minister not met with his own committee? The Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine Advisory Committee has asked to meet with the industry minister for 11 months and still there has been no meeting.
The committee has been asking for recommendations since 2001 which would assist the shipbuilding industry, so that we would not have to have tariffs on ferries for example, which is being done in British Columbia. British Columbia could be building its own ferries according to the recommendations of the advisory committee. 
Why is the government so reluctant to not only meet with this committee but to accept its recommendations to get the shipbuilding industry once and for all in the air in this country?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a competitive shipbuilding industry. We certainly want to make Canada an attractive place. We recognize the huge global pressures in this sector and are committed to an ongoing review of our policies to ensure that they are met.
If I could ask the member from the Maritimes for his support of our defence minister's  defence policy, we are starting to rebuild our navy with three joint support ships. Those ships will be built right here in Canada.
Canadian Wheat BoardMr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is doing everything in its power to demolish the Canadian Wheat Board. It is threatening to kick out its chief executive officer because he is doing his job and not adhering to their ideology. Farm producers are concerned.
Will the government promise that supply management will never be affected by the kind of measures currently being applied to the Canadian Wheat Board?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my friend's question. Supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board are two completely different issues, and we have no intention of touching supply management as such.
Natural ResourcesMr. Bradley Trost (Saskatoon—Humboldt, CPC): Mr. Speaker, hydrogen is becoming an emerging energy source that could one day replace fossil fuels. Yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources promoted the new Ford hydrogen combustion engine shuttle buses, some of which will be used on Parliament Hill.
Could the minister comment on the use of hydrogen and its benefits to the environment?
Mr. Christian Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt for his excellent question.
As the hon. Minister of Transport said previously, Canada's new government has pledged to provide Canadians with a sustainable environment by ensuring air and water quality. It has offered positive solutions to environmental problems. Our government believes that there is a huge potential for hydrogen technologies to improve economy and air quality. This initiative is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the benefits.
Unlike the previous Liberal government which was all talk and no action, we take action. This pilot project reflects the commitment we have made to maintain our leadership internationally in the field of hydrogen technologies.
TradeHedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, Canada's economic security depends on our ability to be competitive and export our goods into emerging Asian markets. Asia contains the fastest growing economies in the world. That is why the previous Liberal government invested almost $600 million in the Pacific gateway strategy. The new Conservative government pretended it would honour the strategy. Instead it delayed and diluted it; another broken promise.
Why does the government continue to put the gateway strategy and Canada's global prosperity at risk?
Mr. James Moore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Vancouver Centre for getting it exactly wrong.
When the Liberals were in power, they promised $590 million for the Pacific gateway, but they in fact did not spend it. The Liberals allocated it, but the money was never spent.
What we have done is put forward $600 million in the Asia-Pacific gateway for real projects that will get real results for British Columbians and all Canadians.
Gordon Campbell supports our plan. Sam Sullivan supports our plan. All the western provinces and indeed this entire government are supportive of the Pacific gateway. It is going to get real results for all Canadians. We are proud to deliver what the Liberals failed to do.
Foreign AffairsMr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned that a Canadian mining company operating in Ecuador has been the subject of complaints for hiring paramilitaries. This news raises concerns about respect for human rights.
Will the Prime Minister show leadership, and put a stop to the human rights violations and environmental abuses committed by certain Canadian businesses operating abroad?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we take human rights very seriously. The Prime Minister has said that very clearly. It is a tenet of our foreign policy.
I will take the question under advisement, look into it and report back.

Routine Proceedings
Ways and MeansHon. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Labour responsible for the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act and Chapter 47 of the Statutes of Canada.
I ask that an order of the day be designated to debate the motion.
Aboriginal AffairsRod Bruinooge: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation final report for 2006.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions.
Committees of the HousePablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and has agreed, on Thursday, December 7 2006, to report it, with amendments. It is a great moment for those who want to deal immediately with climate change. 
PetitionsKeith Martin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hundreds and hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast, I would like to present this petition.
Each year thousands of young Canadians from coast to coast express the desire to serve in society as volunteers in Canada or abroad. Some 40 countries worldwide have programs that enable this to happen. The petition calls on Parliament to enact legislation or take measures that would allow all young Canadians who wish to do so to serve in communities as volunteers at a national or international level.
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions from numerous people all across the country. The petitioners draw attention to the trafficking of women and children across international borders for the purposes of sexual exploitation. They call upon Parliament to protect the most vulnerable members of society from harm, those being the victims of human trafficking. These petitioners are from all over Canada, from Quebec, from Ontario, from B.C. 
Today in Vancouver as we speak a raid is being carried out on brothels with an alleged connection to the human trafficking issue in our country.
Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present several petitions.
The first is on behalf of residents of northern Ontario who are calling on Parliament to ensure lifetime surveillance and containment of released sex offenders as well as stricter penalties for violent behaviour against infants, toddlers and children.
Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is on behalf of residents of my riding who are calling upon Parliament to amend the Income Tax Act in order to permit a pension from a registered pension fund to be split between spouses.
Anthony Rota: Mr. Speaker, third, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Nipissing--Timiskaming who are calling upon the government to take all measures necessary to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years of age.
I respectfully submit these petitions to the Clerk of the House.
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has been signed by members of my community of New Westminster, in Burnaby and in Coquitlam.
 The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to pull back from the unbalanced counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, citing that it has no clear objectives, criteria for progress or definition of success. They say that the New Democratic Party has called for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from this mission, that they support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.
 They call upon the government to begin the orderly withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.
Bradley Trost: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from people across Canada, including some constituents from my riding of Saskatoon—Humboldt.
 The petitioners call upon the government to assist young Canadians in volunteer work. Specifically, they call upon the government to spend more to do it.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table four petitions in the House today that have been signed by numerous constituents in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South. 
My constituents are concerned with the $1 billion budget cuts that were announced in September. Specifically, the four petitions call upon the government to restore the funding for the four following programs: $18 million for the adult literacy skills program; $6 million for the court challenges program; $5 million for the Status of Women; and $10 million for the youth international internship program.
Pablo Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,500 Canadians. The petitioners call upon Parliament to take measures in order to allow a larger number of young people to do volunteer work in Canadian communities or abroad.
Volunteering gives young people an opportunity to engage in a rewarding experience, to acquire useful skills for their future and to contribute to the betterment of society. However, because of the lack of government funding to organizations offering such volunteer programs, the vast majority of young people interested in engaging in such an experience are not given the opportunity to do so. 
Canada can hardly use a lack of financial resources as an excuse to justify this situation. This is why people are calling for concrete measures to make it easier for young people to do volunteer work.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006, be read the third time and passed. 
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): There are five minutes remaining in the time provided for questions and comments. 
The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question about the fiscal imbalance.
In the last budget, the government promised to correct the fiscal imbalance. That is the only reason we supported that budget last spring. We have noticed that since the budget was tabled, the government has backtracked every chance it gets. Only two paragraphs of the recent economic statement referred to the fiscal imbalance, and only in very vague terms.
We in the Bloc Québécois are very concerned about what the government's next budget will include. We have established what Quebec is expecting, in light of the Séguin commission's figures, among others. Various calculations have been made, including the one Mr. Séguin tabled in the National Assembly, which called for $3.9 billion, as we have done.
But the Conservatives are saying that Mr. Séguin never called for $3.9 billion. In fact, Mr. Séguin asked that equalization be based on the 10-province standard and include all revenues, including non-renewable natural resources, which represents $2.8 billion. He asked that education transfers be restored to 1995 levels, adjusted for inflation, which adds $1.1 billion.
When we heard Mr. Séguin say that in the National Assembly, we asked our entire research team to closely examine those figures. We concluded that 2.8 plus 1.1 equalled 3.9, so $3.9 billion.
I therefore wanted to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance reached the same conclusion. Does she agree that $2.8 billion in equalization, added to $1.1 billion in education transfers, equals $3.9 billion, the total the Bloc Québécois arrived at?
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that the government is moving ahead vigorously on this whole matter of fiscal imbalance and equalization. In budget 2006 we committed to bring forward proposals on a renewed and strengthened equalization and territorial formula financing program. We committed to a new approach to long term funding support for post-secondary education and training. We committed to a new framework for long term funding to support infrastructure programs and also to a new approach for allocating unplanned federal surpluses.
The government is also looking forward to making progress on other key initiatives, including the use of the federal spending power in areas of provincial responsibility and working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the economic union.
I understand everyone is working the numbers and putting forward proposals. The province of Quebec is doing that, and it is certainly entitled to do so. Other provinces are doing the same. The finance ministers are meeting with the federal finance minister next week. Therefore, I can well imagine there is some number crunching and some proposals being put forward.
However, the member and the House can rest assured that the government is committed to addressing these important issues. We will be doing so in a manner that is fair and transparent. I am sure my hon. colleague will be very happy when the final results and the final proposal comes forward from all these consultations.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about 11 months ago, the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister, wrote a letter, in very detailed terms, to the Council of the Federation and the premiers making the explicit commitment that in the revision of equalization, his government, if it were elected, would completely remove non-renewable natural resources from the equalization calculation. It was a clear, unequivocal, specific commitment.
Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that this promise will be explicitly in the government's package of measures?
[Interjection]
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that the Prime Minister is very cognizant of his comments in this area. If he is not, I am sure he will have lots of help from members opposite.
The member will just have to wait and see how these difficult issues are resolved. I know he appreciates that there are a number of competing interests. The Government of Canada will do its very best to balance all those interests in a way that is fair and equitable for all provinces.
Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. First, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wascana who, as finance minister, left the best economic environment inherited by a new government in the history of Canada. As well, we had declining debt to GDP, significant budget surpluses, low inflation and low unemployment. After 13 years of Liberal government, Canadians were extraordinarily well served with fiscal responsibility and economic innovation that gave the new minority Conservative government an opportunity to make some very positive and forward thinking decisions.
Unfortunately, those decisions did not come. Unfortunately, we have a neo-Conservative ideology that consumes the Conservative government and threatens both Canada's social progressivity and economic prosperity. 
Look at what the government has done in just a few months. It cancelled the Kelowna accord, cut literacy programs, slashed $5 million from the Status of Women, slashed programs and funding for museums, killed the court challenges program, which enabled Canadians to defend their charter rights, and cut the GST, while raising income taxes for low income Canadians.
The Prime Minister refers to himself sometimes as an economist. He must be the only economist on the planet who would support cutting a consumption tax in order to raise income taxes. Every other country in the world is moving to reduce income taxes and in fact in some cases increasing consumption taxes. 
This is bad economic and social policy to cut the GST and raise income taxes on low income Canadians. It is a move that has been condemned by the IMF and the OECD. Instead of the minority Conservative government engaging in meaningful discussion around long term tax reform focused on growth, productivity, prosperity and doing the right thing, it is offering Canadians a grab bag of tax trinkets that are designed to buy votes, not to build prosperity or fairness.
There is a startling lack of vision. The government cannot look beyond this week's polls. It is so focused on wedge politics and dividing Canadians that it is ignoring the opportunity to unite Canadians around shared national objectives for the future of building a world class sustainable economy.
Today I will like to talk about some of the types of thinking and ideas that the Government of Canada ought to be pursuing if we are serious about building that world-class sustainable economy that Canadians desire and deserve, ideas such as: reform Canada's tax and income support system to create a fairer, more competitive and greener Canadian economy; a renewed architecture for income security; help the working poor, which is one of the greatest social and economic challenges facing the country, with a working income tax benefit, which was introduced by the previous finance minister, the member for Wascana, but cut by the minority Conservative government; corporate investment tax reform; and continue to reduce the burden on investment in Canada and on corporate earnings.
Canada has the eighth highest taxes on investment out of 61 industrialized countries. The Liberal government had reduced that tax burden on investment. Much more can be done in innovative ways that actually create greater wealth for all Canadians.
The government should create long term market based economic opportunities for Canada's aboriginal peoples, building on the success of the urban aboriginal enterprise zone in Saskatoon. It should work with other western Canadian cities to offer that kind of tax advantage and enterprise zone opportunity to Canada's aboriginal people. At the same time, it should create long term economic growth and prosperity and help address the urban aboriginal challenge that Canada faces, particularly cities in western Canadian.
It should be harnessing multiculturalism and immigration as economic drivers. For a long time we have treated multiculturalism as a social policy. In fact, with globalization and with some of the fastest growing markets in the world being represented by China, India and Brazil, our multicultural communities represent natural bridges to some of the fastest growing economies in the world. We need to harness that entrepreneurial capacity of our multicultural communities to build those bridges and to strengthen that trade.
Instead of doing that in places like China, for example, where Canada has traditionally had a strong trading relationship while at the same time advancing human rights on the agenda with the Chinese government, the Conservative government has actually pursued a policy of isolationism against China. Instead of engaging China on the economy and engaging China on human rights, the government has actually undone a tradition of over 30 years, a tradition of engaging China and creating economic growth and prosperity for the Chinese people and for Canadians and at the same time advancing human rights there.
There is only one thing that Richard Nixon and Pierre Trudeau ever agreed on and that was the engagement of China. George Bush and our present Prime Minister agree on isolating China. I believe they are wrong. They are pursuing a policy that is dead wrong economically and is fundamentally flawed from the perspective of the advancement of human rights as well.
Putting competitiveness on the federal-provincial agenda, working with the provinces to advance the idea of a national securities regulator, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, and working with the provinces on a shared services agenda are things the Conservative government should be working on. It should be building on the Services Canada model that enabled the federal government, under the Liberals, to work with provincial governments to reduce the cost of government, improve the quality of services for Canadians, and recognize that there is only one taxpayer.
The government must invest in and attract private sector investment to rural and small town Canada through smarter rural and regional development. It should offer investment tax credits for areas of higher unemployment and broadband access for all Canadians. It should be helping rural Canadians and Canadians engaged in the agricultural sector benefit from the green revolution. It should be making Canada a leader in clean energy and environmental technologies, which could be the fastest growing area of the 21st century economy.
The Conservative government must make Canada a global leader in the research, development, commercialization and export of clean energy and clean energy technologies as part of Canada's overall strategy of taking a leadership role and reshaping our education, training and innovation strategies.
 I want to focus on that area today, that idea and the vision of Canada as a global leader in the area of clean energy and environmental technologies.
We need to forget the old notion that good environmental policy hurts the economy. Clean energy and environmental technologies are the greatest economic opportunity that Canada has in the 21st century.
 I believe that politicians of all stripes can sometimes take the economy for granted during good economic times. That would be a huge mistake, because we would lose the opportunity we have to build on the successes of the last 13 years and to move forward on a strong base.
The fact is that there are storm clouds on the horizon. Our global competitiveness is slipping while other countries are pulling ahead. In fact, the countries that are pulling ahead of us, such as Finland, Sweden and Norway, are countries that have embraced green technologies and environmental technologies and have understood that greening an economy is not only good for the environment, it is good for business. 
According to the latest World Economic Forum or Davos survey, Canada has actually dropped to number 16 in the world from number 13 last year in terms of our global competitiveness. These other countries that have embraced environmental technologies, that understand the linkage between good environmental policy and good economic policy, are leaping ahead.
At the same time, while our competitiveness is slipping, we are actually enjoying a very significant and high level of prosperity. Let us ask ourselves how we as a country are enjoying such a high standard of living while our competitiveness and relative productivity are slipping every year. 
The fact is that we are gobbling up non-renewable natural resources as if we have put the oil and the gas under the ground. Our generation is propping up our standard of living by robbing from future generations of Canadians, all while we are destroying the environment. 
The countries and the companies that embrace the environment as a core priority will prosper in the 21st century. The other ones will be left in the dust. 
Global warming is a real threat to our planet and our country, but it is also creating major economic opportunities for Canada.
In the 21st century, the growing economies of China, India and Brazil will cause the worldwide demand for energy to skyrocket. Canada can take on the challenge of helping the world meet its energy needs while protecting the planet. Both human development and economic growth depend on achieving this dual objective. 
Energy is Canada's clear global advantage. We can be the world leader in clean energy production, technology and export. What we need is a plan.
 We need to work with the energy industry to put that plan together and we need to recognize that in fact working to meet our Kyoto targets can, with new thinking and innovation, be good for the economy. The plan that I am talking about today can be good for the environment and good for business.
 It starts with the tar sands, where we need larger investments in basic research and development and commercialization of new technologies. We need to work with the oil companies and the petroleum companies in the tar sands to produce cleaner energy and to work with them to find new methods to bury the carbon under the ground instead of spewing it into the air.
Canada's energy sector is rolling in profits. It should be investing more than 1% of those profits in research and development. Putting a price on carbon and providing tax incentives for research and development can help transform Canada's energy sector from a research and development laggard to a leader. The result could be cleaner oil, cleaner gas, cleaner coal and less carbon being pumped into the air.
The tar sands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. At the same time, they are remarkably profitable, pouring profits into shareholders' pockets and money into federal and provincial social programs. We need to change extraction methods to do it better and to do it cleaner.
It is not enough to lay the responsibility for fighting global warming exclusively at the feet of the energy companies. We must give all Canadian enterprises generous tax relief and fast write-offs to compensate for the cost of environmentally friendly energy technology and materials.
Simply put, we have to stop subsidizing companies that pollute and we have to start helping companies that produce clean energy and consume less energy.
Canada has among the highest taxes in the world on investment and corporations. We need to focus our tax reductions on activities that reward companies for investing in new technologies to cut their energy use.
 Smart money is going green. We need to make Canada a magnet for the smart money and talent of this exciting new sector.
In 2003, Goldman Sachs estimated that $400 billion of international institutional capital was earmarked for investments in environmental technologies in clean energy. It was $400 billion in 2003. Today, in 2006, according to Goldman Sachs, that number has grown to $3 trillion.
Many are comparing the potential impact on capital markets and on business in general internationally, comparing this opportunity that clean energy represents, to the Internet revolution. In fact, some estimate that it will actually create greater levels of economic opportunity than the Internet did.
The Internet did create remarkable economic opportunity, but let us remember that if the Internet did not exist we would still be getting up every morning, we would be going to work and we would still be living our lives. The Internet satisfies a desire, a desire to communicate information more rapidly and more efficiently, but it does not really satisfy a need.
Environmental technologies and clean energy address a real global need. They will not impact how we live our lives; they will in fact impact whether or not we will be able to live our lives on our planet. The economic opportunities created by environmental technologies I believe will dwarf those created by the Internet revolution. 
As a conventional energy producer, Canada has a ticket to the best economic game in town. Our goal is clear. Canada can be and should be the world leader in the research, development, sale and export of clean energy and clean energy solutions, everything from wind, solar and biofuel to tidal and fuel cells, and yes, we should have an open and honest discussion about the potential of nuclear.
Personal taxes are high in Canada. Why does the government not consider focusing personal tax reduction on tax credits for Canadians who buy green, for green cars, green home renovations and green heating systems? Instead, the government cancelled the EnerGuide program, a program that was actually helping low income Canadians renovate their homes to save energy, to save money and to save the environment. 
We could go further. CMHC could back eco-mortgages to support environmentally efficient design and renovation. 
Governments need to do more to go green. That means buying green and building green. As minister of public works, I implemented a program of green procurement. We also initiated in our department the first office of the greening of government in the history of Canada. We were moving through green building design and procurement to green the overall operations of government.
The Department of Public Works buys $13 billion worth of goods and services a year. If it buys green, it actually has a huge impact on creating a market for green products and technologies within Canada, ultimately helping to bring down the prices of those products so that ordinary consumers can afford them.
The Department of Public Works manages 7 million square metres of office space across Canada. If we lease green office space, and if we design, build and renovate greener buildings, it has a huge impact on the environment and, once again, a huge impact on creating a market for environmental technologies.
When governments buy green, when citizens buy green, then companies produce green products. It can create something called green growth. Instead of a gold rush, it could be what I call a green rush.
The Stern report to the British government concluded that the price of inaction could be an economic cost as great as $7 trillion. That would be an economic cost greater than that of World Wars I and II and the Great Depression combined. 
We cannot afford to do nothing. Climate change is a global crisis. The solution will take leadership from Canada, a country with a history of punching above our weight. 
We have a tremendous opportunity as a country to act and to make a real difference, to engage the private sector, to engage citizens, and to engage Canada's energy sector. It is important that political parties put aside partisanship and work together to develop and implement the best ideas.
Parliamentarians who sat in this House in the 20th century worked very hard and looked ahead to help shape a legacy for the 21st century for this Parliament and successive governments, and left a Canada that is one of the most socially progressive societies anywhere in the world. 
I believe that if we get to work as a Parliament, and if governments, including the Conservative government, wake up and recognize the importance of the environment and the opportunity represented by environmental technologies and clean energy, that the legacy that we work toward at the end of the 21st century can be a Canada that is a global leader in the area of environmental technologies and clean energy, a Canada that has risen to the challenge, and a Canada wherein Canadians are proud of the role that we have played in terms of helping to address the biggest challenge facing the planet in the 21st century.
 I cannot think of another issue that would engage Quebeckers and all Canadians, particularly young Canadians, that would have a greater impact on national unity in terms of shared national objectives than the environment. This is a tremendous economic opportunity for Canada and a tremendous moral imperative for us to act and act now.
I have taken the few minutes I had today to talk about some ideas for the future. That is something that we as parliamentarians ought to be doing more of. I offer these ideas to a government that I fear is going to be unwilling because of its narrow neo-conservative ideological focus to accept them, but I would hope that perhaps in the last 20 minutes I have been able to offer some ideas that would make some sense to the government. If not, we will simply have to replace it in the next election and we will go forward with building a cleaner, greener, more prosperous and productive Canadian economy.
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech given by the member for Kings—Hants. I have a simple question for the member. There seems to be a glaring hypocrisy here from the member opposite or a glaring flip-flop. When the member opposite was a Progressive Conservative and actually ran for the leadership of that party, he made statements in this House. He is going to say that party no longer exists, but he cannot escape one simple fact and I would like him to specifically address this.
He made statements on the record in this House, and I wish I had them here to quote into the record, that Kyoto was nothing but malarkey. Then, after his conversion to the Liberals, the member is now apparently convert and believes in Kyoto. The people watching at home and Canadians would be interested to hear how this member explains this blatant contradiction from being a complete opponent to Kyoto--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Kings--Hants.
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member to actually read the speech I gave in this House in 2001 at the time of the decision to ratify Kyoto in which I actually said I supported Kyoto. In fact, I attacked the government for not putting in place a plan at that time to meet Kyoto targets, so I was critical at that time of a government that did not implement a plan immediately to respect Kyoto targets. I was supportive of the Kyoto accord.
Today I find myself attacking a Conservative government that has actually undone a plan, has taken apart and destroyed a plan, that the Liberal government actually implemented. I supported that plan. I was part of a cabinet and in fact, under the leadership of my current leader who was environment minister at the time, a plan was implemented that made sense, that advanced the environmental file that would help us respect and achieve our Kyoto targets. This government is undoing it, so I am being entirely consistent.
 I attacked when there was no plan to respect Kyoto targets and I am attacking today a government that completely gutted a Liberal government's plan to move toward meeting those Kyoto targets, so I have been entirely consistent.
One of the differences between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party is that the old Progressive Conservative Party understood that climate change was a reality. It understood that we had to take action as a government, and in fact believed that Kyoto was the right thing but the plan needed to be in place to respect those targets.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): I am going to give the floor to the member for Jeanne-Le Ber so he can ask a question.
I would like the hon. member for Kings--Hants to keep an eye on the Chair so that I can give him advice as to how the clock is running.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Kings—Hants and I was pleased, if surprised, to hear him talk about how our tax system must stop encouraging polluting industries and instead give tax benefits to companies in the sector who can contribute to improving our environment because major investments are needed. I was pleased because the Bloc Québécois has long held this position. If the member's riding were in Quebec, I think he would be ready to join the Bloc Québécois.
At the same time, I was surprised because many of the measures that help the oil industry were set up during the Liberal government's tenure. We remember the many gifts that were given, including accelerated capital cost allowances for 100% of oil sands investment. That means that according to the Liberal Party, an oil sands development has a useful life of one year. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Among other things, when the Standing Committee on Finance was drafting its pre-budget consultation report, I made a proposal to abolish this tax incentive, which encourages pollution. Unfortunately, the committee rejected the proposal.
I would like to know why we did not get his party's support to abolish a tax incentive that encourages polluters. 
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
First, our government implemented positive changes to honour our commitments under the Kyoto accord: for example, EnerGuide and the other programs to encourage people and businesses to make a difference and invest in clean energy.
I absolutely agree with the member. We need to do more. That is why I have suggested ways of doing so.
It is clear to me that Quebeckers are particularly aware of environmental issues. I have confidence that Quebeckers and all Canadians can be rallied around a major national objective such as the environment. I hope that with effective policies, it will be possible to unite the country, Quebeckers and all Canadians, around this objective. Perhaps with that approach, it will be possible for us to work together in my party, the Liberal Party.
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his thoughtful dissertation on the green economy and all the things we could do within it. Certainly, we have to make choices. We have made some choices in the past. One of the choices the Liberal administration made in the last few years, which was backed up by the Conservatives when they got in, was to encourage the development of liquefied natural gas terminals in Canada. These terminals would bring gas from other countries to Canada at very high environmental cost in terms of the CO2 emissions to get the gas here. As early as May, the North American Energy Working Group was busy continuing this plan to develop the infrastructure of delivery of another fossil fuel from somewhere else.
As a Liberal member of cabinet before, does he now see the error in supporting the development of this new fossil fuel energy source for this country? It exports money and creates pollution in other countries. Does he think this is the kind of thing with which we should be moving ahead if we are really, truly talking about a green economy in Canada?
[Interjection]
Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, the member refers, in a pejorative way, to fossil fuels. Perhaps he is of a different mindset because I know some people believe that we can achieve all the energy requirements that the world needs with wind, solar energy, biofuels and these others. In fact, that is not accurate. 
We need to start with cleaner fossil fuel technology; the way we extract and the way we refine. We need to invest in the kinds of technologies that can lead to cleaner oil, cleaner gas and cleaner coal. However, we should not dismiss offhand any form of energy when the technology is available or waiting to be commercialized to actually produce it in a more environmentally sound way.
I mentioned earlier, and he may be adverse to this, that we have to have a broader discussion about nuclear power as a greater part of meeting our energy requirements in Canada. France is producing 78% of its energy with nuclear power. We cannot have a reasonable discussion on reducing greenhouse gas emissions unless we are willing to actually talk about nuclear power when it is one technology that does not produce or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
We as a country have significant uranium resources. I have been told that we are one of three countries in the world that is stably and democratically governed, until recently, and, at the same, has significant uranium resources. We need a broader discussion, but we should not be coming at it from an ideological perspective. I think that there are opportunities for us to produce all the forms of energy in a--
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The hon. member for Kings—Hants had been asked to look at the Chair and I would have avoided interrupting him.
The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber may continue.
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about this notice of ways and means on the budget. Although the Bloc Québécois has always had serious reservations about this budget, we have decided to support it, as we believe it contains a number of gains that the Bloc Québécois has long been calling for. Moreover, today, during question period, I was glad to hear the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities remind this House that he needed the support of the Bloc Québécois. I think that clearly shows how useful and relevant the Bloc Québécois is.
Here are some of the gains and long-standing requests that we have successfully obtained from the government. The first is tax exemption on bursaries. We believe that if one level of government gives money to students for their studies, no part of that money should be taken away from them in the form of taxes. We also obtained tax improvements for micro-breweries. This is of particular concern to me, because the McAuslan brewery is in my riding. If time allows, I may discuss this further a little later. In any case, we had been calling for this for quite some time. A tax credit for public transit users, something that the Bloc Québécois requested on several occasions, was part of our platform. We are pleased to have obtained this. We had also long been asking for removal of the excise tax on jewellery, a tax credit for tools—the government even extended this to apprentices—and a 50% reduction in the right of landing fee.
As the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities stated this morning, the government needs the support of the Bloc Québécois in order to advance its issues. We are also working on another large file. We are hoping, as the parliamentary secretary said this morning, to be very pleasantly surprised and see the government finally fulfill its promise to correct the fiscal imbalance in the next budget.
However, I must confess that we are skeptical about this, to say the least, because, since tabling the last budget, all signs from the government seem to minimize the seriousness of the problem. We were even seriously told in this House and in committee that the GST reduction was helping to resolve the problem. This illustrates the government's failure to understand the problem of the fiscal imbalance. We are told that the problem is being resolved, although meanwhile, Ottawa cancelled a child care agreement with the Quebec government, thus adding to the fiscal imbalance.
Some say that the Bloc Québécois' requests are far-fetched, although the minister, Mr. Séguin, made the same requests in the National Assembly on behalf of Quebeckers. The number is the same. No matter how you try to calculate it, the answer is always $3.9 billion.
So, for us this is essential and it will be critical in the next budget. If the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was serious this morning when he said that he needs the support of the Bloc Québécois, he will take note that this is our main demand. This is why Quebeckers put their trust in the Bloc Québécois. They know that we always follow up on our commitments, including resolving the fiscal imbalance issue. Quebec must receive $3.9 billion annually, through transfers or through the equalization program. In the short or the middle term, the government will also have to consider a true tax room transfer. Indeed, the middle or long term solution that is needed to solve the fiscal imbalance issue can only be achieved through a tax transfer. 
No one in Quebec wants to be subjected to the risks that result from having various governments in Ottawa, various parties that change the programs, that abolish them, or that suddenly reduce federal transfers, like the Liberals did in 1995. We want to be able to manage our own financial resources, since it is our taxes that we are sending to Ottawa. This is a top priority for the Bloc Québécois.
In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance also talked about the government's intention to limit the federal government's spending power.
We are not opposed to that. On the contrary, this is interesting but, once again, we are very skeptical.
I asked the minister, when he appeared before the committee, to elaborate a little more on this, but he said very little. Now that this House has recognized that Quebeckers form a nation, it would be nice to include, in the next budget, real and concrete measures to limit the federal government's spending power.
What does this mean? When we talk about restricting the federal government's spending power, it is clear, at least in Quebec, that we are talking about the right to opt out with full financial compensation from any program put in place by the federal government in a Quebec or provincial jurisdiction. This measure will also have to be retroactive, so that the governments of Quebec and the provinces can say, “There is currently a program in my jurisdiction. We are asking for the right to opt out with full compensation, to be able to set up our own programs”.
This could be the case, for example, with the child care program. The approach used by the government in this area is totally different from the one selected by Quebec, which is to establish a public child care program shared by all.
If the government is really serious about limiting the use of its spending power, it has to expect that the Government of Quebec might say, for instance, “We are withdrawing from this program, taking the money currently provided by the federal government for child care and investing it in our own program”.
In its next budget, the government will have to correct errors and problems with taxation which penalize Quebeckers. I touched on that earlier this morning. The biggest problem was the impact of the child care program and cuts to Quebec in terms of the tax credit for child care, among other things.
In the rest of Canada, parents claiming tax credits for child care may claim $25, $30 or $40 a day, while in Quebec, parents who have access to public day care can claim only $7 a day. They still have to pay the difference through their taxes in Quebec, but they cannot claim more than $7 a day on their federal income tax. This makes for substantial savings for the federal treasury, while Quebeckers lose control over that money.
I questioned the parliamentary secretary this morning. As part of the Conservative government's alleged commitment to flexible federalism, will her government announce that it will respect the choice made by Quebeckers? Will it give back to the Quebec government the money saved each year on tax credits unclaimed by Quebec parents, so that this money can be invested in Quebec's own child care services? The parliamentary secretary would not commit to do so. It is very sad to see that this commitment to flexible federalism has remained little more than lip service. Flexible federalism really has to be taken to mean, “We are prepared to make an effort whenever it is no trouble and it serves us. Otherwise, it's your problem. We will not go out of our way for you”.
Quebeckers have to come to the realization that the only real choice left is to become our own country, to be able to make our own decisions and our own choices without having to ask permission of other levels of government. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois will be here to try to limit the damage.
Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about Kyoto in this budget, which is very sad. Not only is there nothing on Kyoto, but the Minister of the Environment told us earlier this year that she would not give the $320 million that Quebec needs to implement its Kyoto plan.
In this regard, there is a similarity between the Conservatives and the Liberals. Neither of these parties acted on the Kyoto protocol. Yes, the Liberals ratified the protocol. The leader of the official opposition held a nice conference in Montreal and said a lot of nice things, but that does not change the fact that, under the previous government, Canada's record with regard to greenhouse gas emissions was nothing less than catastrophic.
For years the Liberals told us that it was important to meet our targets, but they did nothing. As for the Conservatives, they told us that it was impossible to meet our targets, so they did nothing. The Conservatives know they are incompetent and unable to deal with this problem, whereas the Liberals pretended they did not know. I think it is the only difference between those two parties. We hope that the next budget will include funds for the environment and for the Kyoto protocol and that the Government of Quebec will at least receive the money it has requested to fund its plan. 
There is something else missing in this budget. It is a shame because what is missing would not cost much. I am talking about funding to set up an appeal tribunal for refugees, in accordance with the legislation. The regulatory and legislative framework already exists. The government just needs to fund this tribunal so that refugee status claimants can fully affirm their rights. They are currently dealing with commissioners who are often appointed for partisan purposes.
We recently saw in the media that the Conservatives are blocking some appointments for partisan reasons. By having an appeal division with truly independent judges, a refugee claimant who is the victim of a commissioner's error could appeal the decision and truly obtain justice. In my riding, there is a very real, very concrete example in the case of Abdelkader Belaouni, who is a refugee in sanctuary in a church basement in Pointe-Saint-Charles. This person was clearly wronged by a commissioner. This example is clear and striking because Laurier Thibault, the commissioner who denied Mr. Belaouni's claim, has not approved a single claim in the past two years. This is a commissioner who denies almost 100% of all claims. That cannot be right. 
If a true appeal tribunal were set up, we would notice this situation even more. Maybe that is what the government is afraid of. Impartial judges might not have a 100% rejection rate and would see that many claims are justified and legitimate. Furthermore, Abdelkader Belaouni is quite involved in Pointe-Saint-Charles and has the community's support. This man wants to contribute to society and he wants to work. He has been here for 10 years. It is truly sad to see that such situations exist in Canada because the Minister of Finance did not include in his budget a few million dollars to set up this appeal tribunal.
In the meantime, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should personally intervene, as far as the law allows him, in order to compensate Abdelkader Belaouni and regularize his situation. Since there was no appeal tribunal in place to prevent this situation, the minister must act to repair the damage done, at least. This would be a good way to make amends. 
The ways and means motion before us would implement part of the budget, Bill C-28. As I have said, the Bloc Québécois asked for a number of measures, including a tax credit for public transit, a tax credit for textbooks and tax deductions for microbreweries. We support these measures, as well as measures to assist and reduce the burden on small and medium businesses in Quebec.
It is therefore not surprising that we will support Bill C-28 even though we have serious concerns about this budget overall.
There is one particularly interesting measure that I mentioned before: a different excise tax for micro-breweries. Since the budget was tabled, the measure has been modified somewhat to cover nearly all Canadian breweries. Even so, it will help a lot and we are pleased to have made progress in this area. As I said, I think that this will help local economies like those in my riding where the McAuslan microbrewery is located. It produces a good product, does excellent work, employs people and helps our communities survive. This is an excellent example of how the Bloc Québécois can contribute by encouraging the government to make good decisions for people.
With respect to individual taxation, the tax credit for toolkits purchased by tradespeople is also something we have been asking for for a long time. In many cases, people whose jobs require tools end up spending a lot of money every year. This is how they make their living, so they do not have a choice. They must buy these tools. Therefore, we are very pleased with this measure, which we have been asking for for so long.
As for the transit tax credit, that was in our 2004 election platform and we are pleased to see that the government finally listened to reason and included this measure in its budget. Obviously, this will not solve the problem with greenhouse gas emissions or the problem with public transit in general. The issue of underfunding must be addressed through the elimination of the fiscal imbalance. If the government is really serious about wanting to deal with transit issues, it will have to deal with the fiscal imbalance. 
There are also a few measures for the most disadvantaged, including increasing to $1000 the amount deductible from the taxable income for pensioners. This is a good measure. However, it would be hard not to say that this does not even compensate for the billions of dollars still owed to seniors who were cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement. This program was too difficult to understand and too difficult to use for many of them. There are people who, for years, would have been entitled to apply for the GIS but never did. When they became aware of it, it was too late. The government agreed to pay the money back only for the last 11 months. That was under the Liberals. We would have thought that the Conservatives would act differently, but no, they are still refusing to give full retroactivity to those seniors who were cheated out of the guaranteed income supplement.
Yet, I challenge anyone not to pay taxes for four or five years and then tell the government, when it asks for its money, that it will only get the last 11 months worth of taxes, and that it is too bad if it did not notice anything sooner. Of course, that would not work. The person would have to pay the taxes owed for the whole period of time. The Bloc Québécois thinks that the government should refund seniors for the whole period during which they did not get the support that they needed. 
Finally, as regards corporate taxation, we are also in favour of increasing the sales figure that allows small and medium size businesses to benefit from a reduced tax rate. We think this is a measure that will help develop the Quebec economy. In fact, we talked about this in our 2000 election platform, when the Bloc proposed a reform of corporate taxation to give more leeway to small and medium size businesses by reducing their tax burden, because this would allow them to better compete on international markets. So, we like this measure.
In conclusion, the next budget will have to include a true support program for older workers, as pledged by the government in its throne speech. That has not been done, but it will have to be done in the next budget.
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned some issues surrounding the fiscal imbalance and the tax points that he would like to see as part of this fiscal imbalance and how we can move money from the federal government to the provinces.
In this budget and in the budgets of the Liberal Party prior to this one, for many years we have seen reductions in corporate tax rates and that has not allowed provinces to pick up tax points. 
Corporations in this country are free to file their tax returns in whatever province they want. In my territory, the Northwest Territories, we have had extreme difficulty with our fiscal situation when we adjust the corporate tax rate. Either we scare off all the corporations and they run to another province to file or we lower the rate and they run to us.
I would like my hon. colleague to speak to how we can deal with the corporate tax rate in Canada that is applied in provinces. Do we not need some kind of agreement across the country to fix the corporate tax rate that will apply and will prevent these corporations from treating us as pawns in their game to reduce their after tax rate?
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely that tax reductions, whether for corporate taxes, personal income tax, the GST and so on, are not the answer to correcting the fiscal imbalance. These are measures aimed at giving money back to Canadians, measures often suggesting that the government is trying to please the population by distributing a little money here and there, but this is in no way a genuine solution to the fiscal imbalance issue. 
As for general tax reductions for corporations, I would point out that, in recent years, although tax rates have been considerably reduced for Canadian businesses, there has been no real increase in investments made by businesses. One might wonder where that money went? Where did those freed up assets go, if not into investments? We might assume that they went directly into the hands of shareholders and that, in the end, it was not as beneficial for our economy as we thought.
The Bloc Québécois always tries to take an approach that offers real, targeted measures. Consider, for instance, the refundable tax credits for businesses that are willing to invest in research. In this budget, for example, targeted measures for small and medium size businesses can be effective, such as special tax rates for small businesses that are expanding. However, simply lowering the general tax rates for all big businesses does not have any useful effect on our economy. This would no doubt please a certain lobby, but it would not be very effective and would in no way contribute to correcting the fiscal imbalance.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, one of the measures in the budget, the tax credit for the cost of riding public transit, would make the cost of a monthly transit pass tax deductible. The Greater Vancouver Transit Authority has released figures showing that ridership for this year increased 10% in June, a further 10% in July and 13% in August. Those are the latest figures we have.
Would my colleague give us his view of whether this sort of measure to encourage the use of public transit should be encouraged and would he have any other studies or figures that might show whether such measures are effective?
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, we are already on the record as supporting this measure. In fact, we put it forward in our 2004 election platform.
I think it is a matter of letting public transit users know that the government supports what they are doing.
I am not sure, however, to what extent this measure will have a significant effect on ridership. We would have preferred a refundable tax credit, because public transit users are in large part student who, more often than not, do not pay taxes. It is less of an incentive for them. I brought this up when the minister came to committee.
While people do talk to me about the cost of public transit—lower costs would certainly be welcome—running times, frequency, routes and infrastructure are also of concern to them. Those who do not use public transit often argue that it takes too long, that it is too difficult to use, that there are not sufficient routes and that the schedules are not flexible enough.
Transit authorities should be allowed to provide expanded service in terms of frequency, scheduling, flexibility and routes. This has to happen at the level of transit authorities, which come under the purview of the provinces.
If the government is really serious about resolving these issues, it has to stop choking the provinces and provide them with all they need to deliver these services to their inhabitants.
Fiscal imbalance really has to be dealt with. We will work on it with the government, which we will support if it gives back to Quebec the $3.9 billion requested to correct the fiscal imbalance.
Mario Laframboise: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber on his excellent speech.
I take this opportunity to add to the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary, who forgot to mention that the Bloc Québécois had already introduced in the House on two occasions, through its members, bills concerning the opportunity of such a tax credit. We wanted a refundable tax credit.
We obviously managed to half convince the Conservatives, who were more open than they are now when they were in opposition. Again, as representatives of the Quebec nation, we are happy the carry the real message. 
The tax credit is a step in the right direction but next time, it should really be a refundable tax credit. This could be included in the next federal budget to ensure that it is not only taxpayers who are encouraged to use public transit and that those who do not pay taxes receive a fair refund. That would encourage them to use public transit more. 
Does my colleague think this is realistic?
[Interjection]
Thierry St-Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
It is true that we need to go further, and the Bloc Québécois will continue to work toward that goal. As I said earlier, I will continue to talk about this in committee and make recommendations. When the minister came, I told him my thoughts on this.
I will certainly continue to work with the parliamentary secretary and all members of the committee to move this file forward.
I believe that the Bloc Québécois' progress, though not yet complete, once again demonstrates the importance of the Bloc Québécois' work. This coincides with what the Minister of Transport said earlier this morning when he was explaining to the House that he needed the Bloc Québécois' support.
We will continue to do our work rigorously and effectively. The parliamentary secretary also sought our opinion on and support for the public transit tax credit, and we gave it.
It would certainly be nice if the Minister of Transport and the parliamentary secretary explained to some of their Conservative colleagues, who like to talk themselves hoarse criticizing the Bloc Québécois, that the party is useful and that they need it to advance the interests of Canadians and—
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Western Arctic
Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in this budget debate. I noted with interest some of the comments the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance made at the beginning of her speech. She set the tone that the government wanted to follow. With this bill, she felt it was opening up new opportunities for Canadians to be better served in the tax system and she spoke to a number of specific instances of that. 
She also spoke of the importance of working Canadians as part of the whole tax structure, and in a way we all are. Working Canadians are the wealth creators. I come from a region of the country which is doing very well in creating wealth for Canadians, with the diamonds, oil and gas in the Northwest Territories. We are starting to push a lot of wealth into the rest of the country.
We can look the oil and gas industry in northern B.C. and say the same thing. People working in that part of the country are creating a lot of wealth for the country. We could say the same thing about northern Alberta. We can go to northern Saskatchewan where the uranium mines are now pumping out enormous profits, another indicator of wealth creation.
The development of hydroelectric power in Manitoba will create more wealth. The northern Ontario diamond mines, the potential great hydroelectric developments in Quebec, the Labrador nickel, and the list goes on, create more wealth. Throughout northern Canada, working people create wealth for the rest of the country. Wealth is a good thing; it makes our world work.
Within the concept of that, we need workers in the north. We need people to live, work raise their families and have a normal life there, just like every other Canadian. That is very important. It creates wealth and helps the whole country out.
In the mid-eighties we had some pretty far-sighted Conservatives in the Mulroney government who realized it was important that northerners be well protected in terms of their ability to live and work. To their great credit, they created what was called the northern residents' tax deduction. That spoke to fairness.
However, when we look at 2006, and in preparation for next year's budget, we need to talk about what the north needs. We need measures to deal with the high cost of living. The tax deduction created in 1986 and remains the same amount in 2006 does not accomplish that purpose. It does not deliver that for northerners any more.
According to information provided by the NWT Bureau of Statistics, a food item which costs $1 in Yellowknife, on average costs $1.35 in Fort Liard, $1.70 in Wekweti, $1.91 in Fort Good Hope and $2.22 in Pawitik. These increased costs do not reflect the fact that the costs of items in Yellowknife are already significantly higher than southern Canadian cities like Edmonton.
On average, households of northerners spend $15,000 more per year on living essentials than other Canadians. Some will argue that higher northern wages make up for these increased costs. If we were talking about a time many years ago, we might say that was the case. However, when we look at Statistics Canada and we look at the wages across the country, we see it is not the case.
The other day I had the opportunity to travel on a plane with a young fellow from Newfoundland who had worked in northern Canada and in Alberta. When I asked him if he was better paid in the north, he said that his paycheque was larger for less work in Alberta than it was when he worked at the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories. This young fellow was a skilled tradesman whose skills could be used anywhere in the country. It is not working for northerners any more.
High wages are not really the answer. It is not about that. High wages only benefit those who have a job which pays well. For the unemployed and the working poor, the high cost in the north only adds to their burdens. The majority of people in northern communities across the country are working for very low wages in very substandard conditions.
Some would say that the much promoted cut to the GST has helped northerners to deal with the high cost of living. In reality, the 1% cut lowered the price of a cup of coffee in Yellowknife by a whopping 1%. A 1¢ drop in the price of a cup of coffee really helps when the price of a litre of milk is $4 or $5 and when someone needs a loan to buy fresh fruit, vegetables and groceries. The GST is very perverse in what it does to northern communities where the cost of living is high. Northerners pay more GST for every item they buy than southerners. In some respects, we in the north pay more taxes than those who live in the southern part of Canada. The GST, the tax on consumption, exacerbates that issue.
If the government really wants to help northerners, and I am talking about northerners in every province and territory, then it should increase the northern residents tax deduction. This is a pretty simple thing to do.
As many members know, since being elected to the House, I have called for the northern residents tax deduction to be increased by 50%, with future increases indexed to a northern inflationary measure. It has been estimated that for each increase of $1,000 to the deduction, $3 million would be put back into the pockets of northerners.
If the Minister of Finance cannot take my advice, then perhaps he will take the advice of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. At its annual general meeting in Saskatoon, chamber members, those very progressive and enlightened people we all know as the backbone of the country with their large and small businesses, voted to support the federal government in: reviewing the provisions allowing for income tax deductions for northern residents and increasing the housing deduction to reflect the actual inflation index costs of housing in northern areas; reducing record burdens by eliminating the current employer specified vacation travel deduction and replacing it with a standardized inflation indexed northern vacation deduction based on the number of people in the taxpayer's household and the area of residence; and dispensing with the limit on medical travel being the lowest return air fare and allowing northern taxpayers the deduction for their actual costs incurred in medical travel. 
These tremendously progressive statements came from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I thank the members for those statements. I thank them for their support because they truly recognize that northern workers are making a difference to our economy. They will continue to add wealth into the country and will continue to support the efforts of southern Canadians to live in a good fashion.
Maybe the Minister of Finance will take the advice of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories that unanimously supported a motion to increase the deduction.
Also calling for this change is the NWT Chamber of Commerce and the Hay River Chamber of Commerce. The head of the Hay River Chamber of Commerce said:
 Hay River is experiencing a period of rapid economic growth, but to sustain this prosperity we must retain and attract residents. 
 He went on to point out that in order to address this need for residents, there must be an increase in the northern residents tax deduction. What a good idea.
I do not know if the federal government realizes this, but if we pay the cost of flying people in and out of the north, that adds to the company's costs and reduces its taxes, which go back to the federal government.
By encouraging northerners to live in the north, we are going to improve the financial viability of companies and we are going to see a return to the federal government. That is not a bad idea; it is a good idea. This is what we want to create in our country.
Increasing the northern residents' tax deduction will help ordinary northerners, but more is needed, and I will not stop there. I speak to that first because it is an issue for people and people first is the way our party deals with things. We also need to speak to the increased need of funding to our territorial governments.
During the election, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of the Northwest Territories, saying:
 We recognize the unique circumstances faced in the North regarding the delivery of programs and services to residents [in small, remote communities] and we are prepared to discuss the challenges regarding the costs and circumstances for the delivery of those services. 
I appreciate the Prime Minister's comments. We all appreciate them. We want them backed up in the budgets of the government so they reflect what the Prime Minister said. That seems to be pretty straightforward. The government has had plenty of time to talk. It has had an expert panel report, advising how to change the funding formulas for the territories. 
The Northwest Territories has identified four key issues that stand in the way of the north achieving its full potential. First among them is a need for a new fiscal relationship with Ottawa, one that reflects the needs of the Northwest Territories. The current fiscal arrangement simply cannot continue. They are deep-seated. Our territorial government, representing the full number of the people in the Northwest Territories, can only borrow up to $300 million. Most of that is tied up already in debt on public utility systems, which of course it has to provide.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. member. When we return to the study of Bill C-28, there will be seven and a half minutes left to the hon. member for Western Arctic.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Human TraffickingJoy Smith:  moved, seconded by the hon. member for Ahuntsic:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the trafficking of women and children across international borders for the purposes of sexual exploitation should be condemned, and that the House call on the government to immediately adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide. 
Mr. Speaker, today I stand in the House to introduce a motion to address a growing crime in our nation: the trafficking of human beings into our country for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Criminals get rich on the backs of innocent victims, primarily women and children. It often involves organized crime and the drug trade, but ultimately it is all about making money for the criminals involved. It is accomplished through the innocent victims who fall prey to these predators.
I will read for members the motion as put forward:
 That, in the opinion of the House, the trafficking of women and children across international borders for the purposes of sexual exploitation should be condemned, and that the House call on the government to immediately adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide. 
Human trafficking is the recruitment, transportation or harbouring of persons for the purpose of exploitation, typically in the sex trade.
 For years the international community has been aware that vulnerable people have been tricked into believing they could find a better life in North America, only to become the victims of a cruel and horrendous deception and land up as prisoners in the sex trade against their will.
These victims have come from the orphanages in Ukraine and from Asia, eastern European countries, Ethiopia and others, but they also come from our Canada and are our Canadian citizens. Young girls aspiring to be models have been known to fall prey to these predators and are transported to outside the country to places such as Milan, where they are forced to pay the perpetrators vast amounts of money to get their documents back so they can return to their homes in Canada.
 This money is earned by participating in the sex trade abroad. They are intimidated and victimized to ensure that they follow through on the pimps' demands. Today there are millions of dollars being made off the suffering of these innocent victims. 
Young people, women and children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Traffickers use various methods to maintain control over their victims, including forced sexual assault and threats of violence. These victims are treated as nothing more than a commodity.
Human trafficking is dominated by organized recruitment methods initiated through putting ads in the paper proposing jobs as hairdressers, caregivers, domestic workers, models or dancers. As soon as the victims reach the country of destination, their documentation is confiscated by the traffickers and they are immediately placed on the sex market. In Canada, that means nude dancing, prostitution and so on. Those who resist end up in training camps in Europe, in Italy and France. They are raped by procurers and forced to turn 50, 60 or more tricks a day until they are psychologically broken.
According to a variety of international police forces such as Interpol and Europol, human trafficking has become a highly lucrative business.
Canada is a country both of destination and of transit as well as being an originating country. As early as the late 1990s, the Chinese and Vietnamese mafia expanded their operations in brothels in Toronto and recruited young girls from Southeast Asia. The young women who fell prey to this trafficking were purchased for $8,000 or less and sold to their procurers for $15,000. A raid by police of these brothels revealed that this particular procurement ring was providing between 30 and 40 young girls to about 15 brothels in Toronto on a quarterly basis.
 I must tell members that, last night and today, officers from Surrey, Coquitlam, Burnaby and Richmond detachments executed 17 search warrants. These raids targeted massage parlours suspected of operating as a front for the sex trade. An RCMP news release says that the operations may be linked to organized crime and human trafficking may be involved.
The UN estimates that over a million people are trafficked throughout the world every year. However, the extent of trafficking into, through and within Canada is not known due to the clandestine nature of the crime and a lack of resources to support police forces, border patrols and non-governmental organizations in distinguishing between trafficked victims and illegal migrants. 
In 2004 the RCMP released a strategic intelligence assessment and examined the current and historic trends in human trafficking in Canada. The assessment found that Canada was an attractive destination for human trafficking due to the economy, social assistance programs and other factors.
Following this initial analysis, the first human trafficking charge was laid in 2005 under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This case is still in the courts.
In May 2006 the first national coordination centre was staffed with RCMP officers and a civilian analyst. The RCMP is also aggressively developing initiatives to address victim protection.
In addition, a highly informative video incorporating investigators, academics and NGO leaders who worked with human trafficking was developed to train the RCMP and others to recognize victims and their predators. This is a beginning. However, much more has to be done, and we have to move quickly.
Since elected to Parliament, I have appealed to the Status of Women committee to take on the study of human trafficking. Finally this year the committee consented to study this issue. We have had many credible witnesses come forward to the committee to give us information and advice. Their presentations only confirmed what I already knew and how important it was to put in the support and resources to combat this horrendous crime.
I want to thank my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, for supporting my motion and for contributing in such a major way at committee as our witnesses made their presentations. Her knowledge and expertise were a great asset to the committee as members listened to the presentations.
I have introduced this motion today because I believe this fast-growing global crime has penetrated our Canadian borders and is growing without the knowledge and awareness of the Canadian public. It is a cancer on our Canadian society and needs to be eliminated.
During my time as a member of the Manitoba legislature, I became acutely aware of the danger of predators luring children over the Internet. At that time, less than a decade ago, the Canadian public was oblivious to the fact that numbers of innocent children were being lured over the Internet and sexually exploited. It was shocking because many of the predators were local citizens in our neighbourhoods, and communities were unaware of what was happening. It was a new type of crime at that time.
I give credit to police forces such as the child exploitation unit in Manitoba, more commonly known as the ICE unit, and organizations such as Child Find, working in collaboration, for putting this crime on the public radar screen. My son was one of the police officers who served in this unit in Manitoba. 
Today, parents, teachers and community members across our nation are working with police and other organizations to put awareness programs into their communities so our children can be safe from Internet predators. 
We are at the same point in our Canadian history right now regarding the crime of human trafficking. The public at large is relatively unaware of what is happening to hundreds of young women and children from other countries as well as children within our own borders.
In 1999 the Government of British Columbia disclosed the existence of a ring involved in the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from its base in that province to cities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the western United States. 
In 1999 the U.S. state department stated that young girls from South America and Honduras were engaged in prostitution in Canada and the United States. 
In 2001 the report of the U.S. state department stated that some minors of Canadian origin had become victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation. That destination was in the United States. The same source also reported that Malaysian women were also engaged in prostitution in Canada. In its report in 2003, it was stated that young girls from Honduras and Slovenia were also trafficked for purposes of prostitution right here in Canada.
The Canadian police have arrested more than 40 people with links to an international prostitution and trafficking ring that sold literally hundreds of Asian women in North America.
 The exact number of victims is unknown in Canada at this time. Currently the RCMP estimates that around 800 women and children are being trafficked for the purposes of prostitution per year, but NGOs across the nation estimate the number to be 15,000. This is quite a gap between the RCMP numbers and the numbers from the non-governmental organizations. Very close to our nation's capital, a trafficking ring was taken down in Windsor, Ontario in April of this year. 
Clearly my motion today is an appeal to the Parliament of Canada to supply the police forces across our nation with the tools they need to combat this horrific crime, through new laws and law enforcement, but also to support safe houses for the victims of this crime.
Before this can be accomplished, parliamentarians and the public must become more educated and aware that in communities all across our nation innocent victims are being threatened and held against their will. They continue to be violated and remain unnoticed as unknowing Canadians live their daily lives.
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the 2010 Winter Olympics are coming to Canada. Tens of thousands of visitors will visit Vancouver for this occasion. With the Olympics come the traffickers, who import vulnerable girls from all across the globe and from within Canada for the purposes of prostitution. This is what happens across the globe wherever major sporting events take place. It is hidden behind closed doors and no one sees the suffering of these young victims. Traffickers see this as a business opportunity and stand to make a lot of money off the sex trade using the innocent lives of vulnerable boys and girls.
Benjamin Perrin of The Future Group, a non-profit organization created to combat human trafficking, told the Standing Committee on the Status of Women that “the traffickers will see this as a windfall”. We as Canadians need to prepare ourselves for this modern day slavery and make it clear to traffickers that they are not welcome on Canadian soil. 
I commend our current government for recognizing the need for action. Our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration brought forth new measures earlier this spring to help victims of human trafficking, first by issuing temporary resident permits for up to 120 days for victims and, second, by providing the necessary support to assist in the healing process.
Our great nation of Canada is about having the opportunity to live in freedom. It is about living in a country where individuals can build productive lives and reach their hopes and dreams. It is about human rights and dignity, which are a necessity for every living human being to have, not only in Canada but in the global community as a whole.
My motion is here today to call on all Canadians to be aware of what is happening and to demand that it be stopped.
 My motion is here today to call on all parliamentarians in this House to stand with one voice and do what we need to do to make the laws and provide the resources to police and non-governmental organizations to help battle this horrendous crime.
My motion is here today because as a Canadian citizen and an elected parliamentarian I am aware that it is my duty to speak out and it is my obligation to act.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for bringing forth this motion. It is an absolutely critical motion dealing with a tragedy that is out of sight, out of mind and, as she mentioned, largely unknown to most Canadians.
It is a global tragedy of huge proportions. In fact, as the member knows, the United Nations has written some very damning reports on the international community, especially the west, and how it is dealing with the trafficking not only of women but children and men as well. The vast majority, more than 60%, of the people who are being trafficked are young women, who, as the member said, become part of prostitution as their identity papers are removed. A lot of this is happening in eastern Europe right now. Tragically, some of it is happening in our own country too.
I would like to ask the member to tell us what solutions we could give to our RCMP that would enable them to work in a more collaborative way, which they are trying to do, with international police forces around the world. What solutions would enable us not only to have better communication assessment identification, but also to have penalties which would ensure that these people, who are parasites on these vulnerable individuals, will be put in jail? As well, what solutions would deal with the root causes of this, which often have to do with poverty in a number of these countries?
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I must say that human trafficking must go up on the public radar screen and that is what we are doing today in the House of Commons.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have produced a very informative video that is being used by RCMP officers and other people to understand how human traffickers work so they can be aware and be trained. However, more needs to be done.
In working with individuals who were trafficked, I found out that when raids happen in brothels and places like that it is hard for individuals, who have been raped, intimidated and threatened, to immediately come forward and name their perpetrators because they are afraid.
The 120 days that the government established to help victims take the time to heal is a start but more needs to be done. The victims need time to get over their ordeals and they need to feel safe. We have victims in the country right now who are being sheltered by NGOs. They do not feel safe and they are afraid to come out. 
We need to create an environment and a structure that will allow these very vulnerable people to heal before they can actually testify against the criminals who captured them.
Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her motion, which I find extremely important.
I would like to ask her a very simple question. In addition to all of the factors involved in human trafficking, in the trafficking of individuals for the purposes of sexual exploitation, does she think that States that legalize prostitution contribute to the growth of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation?
[Interjection]
Joy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that legalizing prostitution would assist in combating human trafficking. I believe it perpetrates the crime.
Behind most prostitutes is a pimp who threatens them. Prostitutes do not really tell their real stories because they are afraid to come forward. Legalizing prostitution would assist criminals in their trade. The problem is that a lot of young girls are made to believe that all they are good for is to be used by men. We need to deal with the clients, the men who go after the market to rape young girls. 
If a man were to rape a young girl on her way to school in the morning, the man would be charged, but when a man goes to a brothel and rapes a young girl, he is not. In fact, in some instances it is known as a macho thing. It is, however, an infringement on young children's dignity and it has to be stopped.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for her initiative on this compelling issue. 
 I am pleased to support the motion and the common cause that underpins it. The motion reads:
 That, in the opinion of this House, the trafficking of women and children across international borders for the purposes of sexual exploitation should be condemned, and that the House call on the government to immediately adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide. 
I am pleased to join with her and with all Canadians in, as she put it, one voice in this regard.
I propose to organize my remarks around two themes: first, an appreciation of the nature, scope and pernicious effects of the evil that we are seeking to combat; and second, to reaffirm a proposal for a comprehensive strategy to combat trafficking, anchored in the one that I developed as justice minister.
However, this is not a matter of partisanship but of common cause and, therefore, such improvements and refinements that can be made in this strategy that I proposed but which remain not fully implemented, would be welcomed by the government.
I will begin with an understanding and awareness of the nature, scope and pernicious consequences of the evil we are seeking to combat, this scourge of human trafficking, this pernicious, persistent and pervasive assault on human rights, this commodification in human beings where human beings are regarded as cattle to be bonded and bartered.
It is only appropriate that this motion be put forward on the eve of International Human Rights Day and only appropriate that we are dealing with it in the aftermath of the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. What we are dealing with is the enslavement of human beings, what I first called in the House, when I presented legislation in that regard, as a global slave trade; treating human beings as goods to be bought, sold and forced to work usually in the sex trade but also as agricultural labour or in sweat shops for little or no money.
Through the dedicated efforts of people like Dean Harold Koh of Yale law school, formerly the assistant secretary of state for Human Rights, Democracy and Labor in the U.S. state department, and Radhika Coomataswamy, the former United States special rapporteur with regard to violence against women, we now have a comprehensive understanding of the scope of this global sex trade. We know that this grotesque trade in human life generates upwards to $12 billion a year. We know that trafficking is so profitable that it is the world's fastest growing international crime. We know that the majority of victims being trafficked are girls and women under the age of 25 and that many trafficking victims are young people, including children. We know that the victims of trafficking are desperate to secure the necessities of life and, as a result of that, their lives are mired in exploitation and rooted in the greed of those who prey upon them.
We know that UNICEF estimated that 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year and that the International Labour Organization estimates that 2.5 million children are currently in situations of forced labour as a result of being trafficked. We know that no matter for what purpose they are trafficked, all trafficked persons suffer deprivation of liberty and physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including threats of violence and actual harm to themselves or to their family members.
If we are to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking, we need to stop thinking in terms of abstract silos, of thinking of human trafficking as an abstract or faceless problem, of thinking of it as a criminal law problem, a law enforcement problem, an economic problem, an immigration problem or a public health problem. It is each and all of these and more.
Trans-border trafficking is a multi-billion dollar criminal industry that challenges law enforcement officials, flouts all immigration laws, threatens to spread global disease and constitutes an assault on each of our fundamental rights. More important, behind each and all of these problems is a human face, a human being who is being trafficked, and that trafficking constitutes an assault on our common humanity.
Accordingly, it must be seen, first and foremost, as a generic human rights assault with a human face as its victim and as being the very antithesis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Professor Harold Koh put it, “By their acts, traffickers deny that all persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They deny their victims freedom of movement, freedom of association and, the most basic freedom, to have a childhood”.
What then can we do? I will briefly outline a comprehensive strategy, speaking telegraphically, of which the first component must be a strategy of prevention: to prevent the trafficking to begin with; to raise awareness of this new global slave trade and of the urgency to take immediate action against trafficking; to raise awareness of the urgent need to raise our voices in domestic and international fora, making it clear that this is a priority for all of us; and to raise awareness that trafficking can be prevented if we mobilize a constituency of conscience, both domestically and internationally.
This motion today can serve as a call to action and ensure that Canadians across the country realize that this modern slavery is not something out there that does not touch us here at home. It is something that exists here in Canada but it not only touches us but it is part of an international connecting link, an assault for which we will need a comprehensive strategy of cross-commitment.
This leads me to the second element in that strategy, which is the protection strategy, respecting the victims of trafficking. This involves a number of elements, including the residency protection, by protecting against ill-considered detention and deportation such that the victims of trafficking are re-victimized if not also re-traumatized, where they sometimes are detained as illegal immigrants facing criminal charges rather than trafficking victims deserving of protection.
There is also the need for support services. We find that a whole series of support services, be it shelter, health or counselling and the like, are matters sometimes that are within provincial jurisdiction and that coordinated effort that is needed for that purpose may be lacking in that regard and that the services end up being delivered by NGOs or private agencies that may not have the resources for that purpose and which need to have the government supported protective framework for these services. 
These victims also need protective support in a form of witness protection and otherwise with respect to those who may wish to testify against those who have in fact assaulted them.
This brings me to the third component, the comprehensive legislative component. We have an Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Last year we enacted the first ever criminal law legislation in this regard. We also have an international law framework that we have domesticated. What we need to do is to invoke, apply and enforce this comprehensive legislative framework in that regard.
Fourth, we also need a focal point for our work. This is where, as a result of international recommendations, we established, during my period as minister, as a focal point for that comprehensive strategy, a federal interdepartmental working group co-chaired by justice and foreign affairs which has an express mandate, in fact, to develop and implement this comprehensive strategy.
Fifth, we need to intensify the work of the RCMP, both domestically and internationally, including its international human trafficking investigative unit.
Sixth, we need to engage our federal, provincial and territorial counterparts. This should be a standing item of federal, provincial and territorial conferences of ministers of justice because of that coordinative aspect that I mentioned earlier.
Seventh, we need to work with our international counterparts to enhance existing legislative tools to combat human trafficking across national borders.
I will conclude by saying that addressing and redressing this most profound of human rights assaults, assaults on human dignity, requires this comprehensive approach, an approach that will allow us to prevent the problems to begin with, to protect the victims of trafficking, to pursue the traffickers themselves, to be involved in partnerships, which I call the four Ps in that regard, and to address the issue from an international and domestic perspective. We have common cause but by working together we can create a critical mass of advocacy on behalf of this most compelling of common causes.
Maria Mourani: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak in support of the motion tabled by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul. I would like to thank her for agreeing to let me co-sponsor this motion. I believe that when we are talking about human trafficking, political party divisions disappear. All that counts is a united approach to solving the problem.
The member's motion asks that Canada condemn the international trafficking of women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and calls for a comprehensive strategy to combat it, which is fundamental. In this age of globalization and economic liberalization, human trafficking has become a lucrative business for traffickers and procurers, as well as States. We must have the courage to speak that truth.
According to the UNODC, 92% of victims of human trafficking are sold into prostitution. Of those, 48% are children. The European Union's Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities reports that 90% of trafficking victims are sold into prostitution.
According to UNICEF, 1.2 million children around the world are victims of human trafficking every year.
According to the 2005 report by the U.S. State Department on human trafficking, 600,000 to 800,000 persons are trafficked each year throughout the world. Of this number, 80% are women and girls and 50% are minors.
According to a 2005 report by the World Trade Organization, 98% of the victims of sexual exploitation are women and girls.
Finally, the United Nations Population Fund estimated in 2006 that roughly 50% of the victims of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation are minors.
Can we say, then, that this is happening only to other people and is not happening in Canada? We cannot.
Clearly, we cannot talk about international trafficking without talking about trafficking within Canada. In light of this, since September, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women has looked at the issue of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation in Canada. We will release our report shortly. In addition, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I personally introduced a motion that was passed unanimously by the committee, recognizing the problem of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation within Canada.
We know that Canada is a country of origin and a transit point on the way to other countries, such as the United States, but it is also a consumer country. Some witnesses who testified before our committee stated that Canadians and Americans were major consumers of sexual tourism. Unfortunately, we have a lot of work to do to protect women and children.
In addition, we must be very careful to distinguish between trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and trafficking for the purposes of forced labour or organ harvesting. We therefore cannot talk about the form of trafficking we are talking about today without mentioning prostitution. There is a very clear link between prostitution and human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. According to various sources, 90% to 92% of the victims of trafficking are traded for the purposes of prostitution. 
The Women's Rights and Gender Equality Committee of the European Parliament, in its notice of September 18, 2006—which is quite recent—quotes the 2004 report by London Metropolitan University on prostitution. This report demonstrated that legalized prostitution leads to child sex abuse, violence against women and a marked rise in human trafficking around the world and, of course, in countries that blithely approve this sort of “work”. There is also a significant increase in the number of women and children from other countries in countries where legalized prostitution is widespread. 
 The commission also concluded that legalization of prostitution facilitates the buying of sex, including from victims of trafficking, and recommends that member states recognize that diminishing the demand for trafficking is of vital importance.
I think the major issue underlying trafficking is prostitution. That is the basic issue. We must therefore ask ourselves the following question. Is prostitution a job or is it exploitation?
Personally, I believe there is no such thing as voluntary prostitution, in comparison to forced prostitution, because prostitution is a form of violence in itself, direct and systematic violence that is perpetuated by exploiters. Besides, the few women who say they do it to make ends meet and who do not have pimps all want one thing. They want to get out of it and do something else with their lives. 
Trivializing prostitution is a violation of fundamental human rights. This trivialization is society's curse. What we are doing is trivializing prostitution. We have all heard that it is the oldest profession. No, it is not the oldest profession. It is the oldest form of exploitation. That is what prostitution is.
The 2001 Criminal Intelligence Service Canada report stated that the average age of entry into prostitution in Canada is 14 years. Does anyone choose prostitution at the age of 14 or 12 or 8? I doubt it.
Children are simply brainwashed and groomed to become prostitutes to fuel this human meat market. Their spirit is broken so that they feel worthless. They are broken to become sexual slaves, even in adulthood. They have never known anything else in their lives other than being exploited, being an object or a piece of merchandise. What do we expect from them? What do we think they will do at age 18 or 19? Do we think they will find work? We will talk about that later.
No one chooses to be a prostitute when they are an addict, a victim of family violence, incest or psychological abuse, when they lack self-esteem because they have been beaten their entire life. No one chooses to be a sexual object. No one chooses to be called all sorts of names. We know that the word prostitute is not always used. A number of other terms are used, which I will refrain from uttering in this House, as a matter of decorum. No one chooses to be forced to service several clients—some talk of 10, 20 or 30 clients—in one day. That would surprised me greatly.
Some people say prostitutes like it, and it is a job that pays well. Let us stop trivializing this violence against human beings. Most of these people are women. Let us ask questions.
Prostitution is conducive only to unequal relations between people. I believe it is highly important that Canada never take the path to legalizing pimping and brothels. I also believe that the Netherlands is a very good example of how this has failed.
Because I have a time limit, I suggest that my colleagues do some research into this. They will see, for example, that in 1981, in the Netherlands, there were 2,500 prostitutes. In 2004, there were 30,000. Some 80% of these prostitutes are foreign nationals and 70% of them do not even have identification documents.
As far as minors are concerned, in 1996, there were 4,000 prostitutes who were minors in the Netherlands. In 2001, there were 15,000, of whom 5,000 were foreign nationals.
We have to wonder about legalizing prostitution, but we still have to deal with this major issue. In Canada, we need to start following Sweden's lead and think about implementing a system that penalizes the purchase of sexual services, because it is a matter of supply and demand. The greater the supply, the greater the demand, and the greater the demand, the greater the supply. The more women there are on the market, the greater the demand for children.
It is high time that, as a society, as a country, we had a fundamental debate about the purchase of sexual services here in Canada. Do we agree that prostitutes should be penalized? No, we need to help them, provide them with shelters, give them psychological support and health care and so on, but women have been penalized enough.
We need to start looking at the real problem: the purchase of sexual services.
Joe Comartin: Mr. Speaker, I will focus on the motion itself and restrain myself on other points.
We have been attempting to deal with the matter of human trafficking since the previous Parliament. In the last Parliament, Bill C-49 went through this place very quickly with all party support. It did not get any time in committee. The bill went through rapidly and is now law. The previous Parliament took on that responsibility in response to international commitments we had made.
This motion should not be necessary. I applaud the author of the motion for having brought it to the House because it highlights the inaction on this issue since we passed Bill C-49 in the last Parliament. In the work that I do within the public security committee and justice committee I have not seen any substantial increase in the resources, in particular for our police forces to deal with human trafficking.
I want to make a couple of points that have not yet been made. The motion itself does not address the other part of human trafficking, although I know other members have referred to it. Close to half of the human trafficking that goes on is not related to the sexual abuse of the victims but is related to victims who are used for work purposes. This occurs mostly in the United States in the garment trade and the agricultural field. Very little of that has ever been identified in Canada, but it is a major worldwide problem. There are children being used as soldiers. That is part of the human trafficking problem that we are confronting internationally.
We have heard estimates of the numbers of people that have been trafficked. The numbers that we have heard today are actually higher. The United Nations estimates that the number of humans trafficked is 700,000. UNICEF, which has done a great deal of work on this, estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked annually. The International Labour Organization, and this brings me back to the point I was making earlier about the number of people who are trafficked for straight commercial purposes, that is, for labour, estimates that the figure is actually 2.45 million. That was a couple of years ago and there is no reason to believe that the numbers have gone down; if anything, they have probably increased in the last two years. Realistically, the figure for all sorts of human trafficking is probably about 2.5 million. 
The motion itself is limited in its assessment to the problem of women and children specifically for the purposes of sexual abuse and exploitation. With regard to the exploitation of women and children for sexual purposes, there is no one in this country, with the exception of the traffickers perhaps, who would argue that we should not be doing more. As a base value within our society the forced use of human beings for sexual purposes is contrary to everything we believe in.
The Conservative government needs to be moving more dramatically to have a fixed plan in place, which is what the previous Liberal government should have done. The plan has to be multi-level. It has to be regional, national and international.
What is interesting, particularly when I was listening to the speaker from the Bloc, is that we also have to get back to the root causes of why women in particular are able to be exploited so efficiently. That means going back to root causes, such as poverty, cultural mores and the acceptance, for instance, of violence in sexual relations. Those are the vast majority of the root causes in other countries. 
The vast majority of women and children are being trafficked out of other countries into Canada and in some cases being used here. From the preliminary information we have from our security forces both at the border and internally, the vast majority of them are being trafficked through Canada from other countries. We have to deal with it locally and we have to be prepared to deal with it internationally. 
One of the frustrations of dealing with it internationally is that when we go to any number of countries in the world at the international level and say they are a major source of human beings being trafficked into Canada and North America, we get a very blasé response and no action. There is work that has to be done at the international level. 
There is work that needs to be done in terms of additional legislation at the international level and, most importantly, enforcement. There are very few countries in the world, if any, that I am aware of, where what is going is not illegal.
I remember being in Russia in the spring of this year as part of the preparation for the G8 meeting with my counterpart in public security and a number of NGOs and my counterpart talked about the major problem in Russia. It is not only a source of women and children to be exploited, it is a consumer of it, and a country where a great number of human beings are trafficked through that country to other destinations. It is a major problem for Russia.
The point he was making was that this conduct is completely illegal in Russia under its laws and it is being almost completely unenforced. It is a reasonably developed community in society but there is very little enforcement of it in Russia. That problem is repeated. We know it is a problem throughout Asia, Africa and South America. 
We have a lot of work to do at the international level. We have to get at the root causes to stop it and have countries enforce their laws to stop the flow. In Canada we need to be dedicating more resources. We constantly hear, particularly from the border people, that we have to be doing more work to intervene.
This government, as did the prior one, has to be looking at a change in policy, so that if women and children are trafficked into Canada, we have the ability to stop that trafficking. If we end it here in Canada, we have to be sure that we have a refuge and provide individuals with that security. We have to ensure that we just do not, as is the present situation, instantaneously send people back.
England took a look at this about a year ago and found that women who were sent back to their own countries repeatedly went back to England because when they went back to their own countries they were caught by the traffickers again and immediately sent back to England. Oftentimes they or their families in their home countries were under immediate threat of violence by the traffickers. We have to look at a change in our immigration policy and provide a special category for these victims if we are serious about dealing with this issue.
Again, I congratulate the author of the motion. This is one of the areas we need to work on. The government needs to work harder and Parliament has to be prepared to put into place policies that are meaningful and will be useful in terms of combating this scourge.
Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells and speak in favour of Motion No. 153 brought forward by my colleague the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.
 I agree, as I am sure all members do, to the motion's condemnation of sexual exploitation. I commend the member for her hard work and perseverance in tackling the issue of human trafficking and for urging the government to adopt a comprehensive strategy to combat the trafficking of persons worldwide.
Indeed, the trafficking of women and children, in particular, for the purpose of sexual exploitation is a scourge of the world. As a leader in the world, I believe that Canada has a duty and responsibility to lead in combatting this scourge both here at home and in other countries.
 As we speak, raids have been taking place at brothels in B.C. where young women and girls are abused. The world's people often look to Canada for leadership. We must not let them down. That is why I am in full support of the motion. I believe that Canada, blessed as we are, can do a great deal to put a stop to this victimization of vulnerable people around the world.
 In developing countries of the world in particular, criminals prey on those want to improve their lives. The wish to improve one's life is universal and a worthy aspect of human nature. To see this positive virtue taken advantage of by criminals, is quite simply heartbreaking.
These criminals target the vulnerable. They care not what harm they perpetrate. They make lavish promises of possibilities in western countries to those eager to believe. Then they cruelly dash this hope by trapping their victims in virtual enslavement.
Listen to what Irene Sushko of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has to say. She says that trafficking of human beings “constitutes horrific acts of slavery, the shameful assault on the dignity of children, the exploitation of the vulnerable for profit”. She goes on to say that 80% of victims are women and children who are lured from developing countries with false promises of jobs and a better life.
Think of it. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a human being could twist himself into being so cruel and heartless. Women and girls, with virtually nothing, become filled with hope of a better life. Only later after they land in their new country do they discover the tragic truth that they must toil work as prostitutes to pay the cost for their trip.
I do not believe there is a single member in the House who is not appalled by these circumstances. Let us translate this gut reaction into concrete action that will protect these vulnerable people.
 Yes, it is time to take more aggressive action to combat the scourge of human trafficking. It is especially timely, given the preparations Canada must make due to our hosting of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Soon we will see the cruel cycle of hope raised only to be dashed replayed unless we act. If we do not act, criminals will be at work setting their traps to entice desperate people to make their way to Canada when we host the Winter Olympics.
It is clear. The time for Canada to take action is now. Consider that during a recent committee meeting, Benjamin Perrin of The Future Group warned parliamentarians that traffickers would consider the Vancouver Olympics to be a windfall. He said, “a large influx of that hard currency and foreigners with a lot of time on their hands and a sense of impunity will essentially drive this industry”. Let us take action today to drive a stake into the heart of this so-called industry.
As a member of Canada's new government, I stand with my colleagues in supporting tough measures to prevent criminals from having their way. I am supportive of the government's acting to protect women and children from being exploited by cruel and heartless criminals. 
That is not to say that constructive action has not already been taken. I would be remiss in not thanking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the actions he has already taken to give comfort to the victims of this cruel crime who are identified here in Canada.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has empowered immigration officers to issue temporary resident permits to victims of human trafficking, thereby helping them to recover from the impact of this horrible crime. We can only imagine the healing of the spirit that must be involved in this recovery. I am heartened that our government shows compassion for these victims. Furthermore, these victims are exempted from the usual processing fee and are eligible for health care benefits. 
I know that the minister and his officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada have worked hard to support officers on the ground to assist victims. I thank them for this good work. This compassion on the part of the Government of Canada toward victims of crime makes me very proud to be Canadian.
The Minister of Public Safety has also taken steps to help protect victims of human trafficking. Bill C-22, if passed, would protect younger victims by raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years, an issue that I raised when in opposition in the last session. I urge members to support Bill C-22 so that Canada can make clear to international visitors and our own population the serious consequences should they break the law.
The passing of Bill C-22 would add another element to the tool kit our authorities must be provided by government in order that we do not provide a supportive environment for victims to be exploited. Simply put, by lowering demand, we can expect to reduce the supply of victims to Canada.
Needless to say, Canada will also need to work with other countries in order to similarly lower demand in those countries. In this manner we can address the motion's call to combat trafficking worldwide.
As I say, we have taken some steps in the right direction to meet the goals of the motion now before the House. I also note that Canada is already a signatory to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children.
Today's motion is a clarion call for us as members of Parliament to call out for ever greater efforts to do more to stop this criminal activity and do more to prevent an ever growing list of victims.
The cause is certainly just. This is not to say that the problem is easy to solve. Nevertheless, by taking actions here at home, as we have already done, we can show the world that Canada is a leader in the fight against human trafficking. By working with other countries around the world, we can display this leadership to the world at large.
It is time to set our sights on doing more to prevent human trafficking, doing more to protect its victims and doing more to prosecute offenders. Passing this motion would set us in the right direction. Consequently, I call on all members to support this motion.
Mr. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know our time has almost run out, but I appreciate the opportunity to add to this debate. I strongly support the motion.
The trafficking of human beings into our country for the purposes of sexual exploitation is a grave and growing threat to our nation. It is difficult for some of us to wrap our minds around the idea that slavery could be alive and well in a country as civilized as Canada. Sadly, it is true. In fact, the RCMP has identified Canada as a transit point and destination for those who traffic in people, and the targets are usually women and young girls.
When we talk about trafficking, we are talking about the recruitment and transportation of human beings for the purpose of exploitation, usually in the sex trade. The secretive nature of this horrific crime makes it difficult to measure the extent of the trafficking industry in Canada, but one thing is clear. We are dealing with a multibillion dollar industry that knows no borders and has no conscience. Its size and scope is second only to the global drug trade. We in Canada, as a free and democratic nation, have a duty to vigorously oppose this vile form of enslavement wherever it exists. To do anything less would be an abrogation of our responsibilities as caring and just human beings.
This really hits home in my home province of British Columbia. We intend to host the 2010 winter Olympics. From our experience with the most recent World Cup in Europe, there was a boom in the prostitution trade. When the 2010 Olympics come to Vancouver and to the province of British Columbia, from where are many of these girls and young women going to come? They are going to be coming from those human traffickers who are exploiting these women for their own purposes.
I will wind up by saying that today's motion speaks to the dignity of human life. It speaks to the right of each human being to live without fear of oppression. It is also about us accepting the responsibility to care for others who, whether by circumstance or otherwise, find themselves in the clutches of the most vile predators.
Today I add my voice in support of the motion. May we all seize this opportunity to do something really significant for our country.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
When Motion No. 153 returns for debate, there will be seven and a half minutes left to the hon. member for Abbotsford.
It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). 
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)